I want to invite you to give a listen to our ken and podcasts and art art news podcast, the russian file. Let me just remind everybody that throughout the conversation and we forgot quite a few of them, you can submit questions by email, via twitter and facebook pages and please do include your name and affiliation just as if youre attending a live event of the Wilson Center which hope we can do against it. Id be more likely to call on you for not an anonymous blurt out. Im join today i dr. Fiona hill was a senior fellow and center for the next its a joke in the Foreign Policy program of the Brookings Institution and, of course, is that one will knows served as Deputy Assistant to the president and senior director for european and Russian Affairs on National Security council. That was 201719. From 2006nine she also served as National Intelligence officer for russia and eurasia at the National Intelligence council and is coauthor of of the very well received and widely read book mr. Putin, operative in the kremlin, 2015 update of princely published books but also want to know, that was with i want to know the two of them offered the siberian also very useful piece still to those i think about russian developing and infrastructure challenges that those bombs have gone away. Fiona, i want to open up right away and ask you what i think is the central question i i thinku and i agree on the difficulty of this but why, why is it so hard to talk about russian and u. S. Russian relations in what we might consider to be a productive way especially here in washington . The obvious answer is because of what happened in 2016 in terms of the russian operation to try to interfere and influence in the elections which of course came across the backdrop of a highly contentious president ial election campaign, extreme polarization on her own political system and a lot of parties and divides pics although what russia did in 2016 in terms of scale wasnt that considerable. It had a much larger amplified impact that i think the russians anticipated. Certainly we ourselves had a failure of imagination to think some of the things russia did in the u. S. Which are no different from operations, active measures, influence operations, disinformation operations that they are carried out in other places going back all the weight to the cold war and even back to the tsarist era if this is something the Russian Intelligence Services have just done as a matter of course answer i think that this is the kind of fair again in the larger overall scheme of things. Even they are scratching their heads about the impact and the skill of the impact that they had that we had the fit of imagination to think that what had worked into sort of a model or a ukraine or george or somewhere else would have an impact year. It was because we were uniquely vulnerable in that time, given the nature of our domestic politics. As a result of that russia has become a factor in our domestic politics. Its a subject of endless conspiracy theories. Its the subject of endless congressional hearings. Everything is still going on now. Were still trying to unpack what happened in 2016 and a lot of what happened is on our own sets of interactions and as a result we cant take russia out of the complexity and put it to one side in way we really should do to assess where do we want this set of interactions with russia to go. Its high time we did that. We cant keep letting in this frame the 2016 forever. Russia, russia itself is still convinced ive been having interactions with the various working groups and russian colleagues at relationship between the United States and russia is still framed in some kind of geopolitical competition. For most of the people engaged at the Kennan Institute, the woodrow Wilson Center and think tanks around the u. S. As well as many people just watching this, why are we still in this frame of a geopolitical competition with russia . The systemic struggle has gone. Were not in the business of trying to carve up your between ourselves as you know we might have been at the end of world war ii. The Transatlantic Alliance itself has been grappling with all these different transnational threats. We are just having a really hard time having that conversation about russia because of these preexisting frames. So its high time we do that. Now is as good as any time honestly with the 2020s election appearing on the horizon very quickly but then what happens after that. In effect i think what im hearing you say, something i thought this for a long time as well, essentially theres an instrument thats always available to an adversary. In this case its russia or an interlocutor, lets just say,n this case its russia but it could be almost anyone else, which is if you can drag participants or competitors in the messy chaotic very highstakes american Political Landscape into your issue then in the fact you may be able to swing the way your issue goes on the international level, on the level of diplomacy and negotiation. So when effect it sort of is an open invitation as long as we continue to show that this works to any partner or adversary to jump into the american side of the equation and basically try to, it would be a rational thing for them to do, right, to conclude Going Forward that this works. Thats the wrist. Its the risk of other people safe hey, this is a great kind of model here for us to get into the fray as well. Basically like tactical mud wrestling and fighting. You hate me, im going to hit you, delete me, i went you. We forgot what this is all about. There were certain issues we are trying to do with any more strategic sense. There is of course the annexation of crimea which was the first real attack of that nature by a major european power since world war ii. Yes, there was the incursion of turkey into cyprus in 1974 in the European Space but this really is on a different level about what russia did in terms of annexing crimea and putting it back into interview into the Russian Federation and doing this whole kind of reversal of history here. And then of course theres the work donbass, the intervention in syria, episodes come against all kinds of things we can point to and i could go on obviously where we all had to have reaction at the vatican shouldnt just the only for a period we have to assess all of these issues on the figure how we were before. Not because we pull back to the same discussion because at this particular juncture with the pandemic everything crisis, climate crisis, this is a first aid d. C. Weve had with made in the 90s. It could be rest of us i begin. Well know things are happening here that we need to focus on to address. The more were in this tactical mudwrestling fight with russia the less we can move forward on addressing big issues. Give me a sense of that. Im particularly interested in the last few years when it seems like what wouldve traditionally been a u. S. Russian agenda, we had kind of a big bilateral issues of the arms control and regional couplets and so on where we have different perspectives for sure but we found ways to manage his thing and that we have a global challenges of climate and pandemic and tear and trafficking and we did Counter Piracy together in the last few years when so much of that agenda has been crowded out by precisely the difficulty of just communicating as you eloquently described it, whats left on the agenda if you were to set it for today . I think all that is left at this particular juncture where we could hope for some traction is arms control because i think everyone of us agrees that this is a necessary endeavor. We have arms control treaties that are running out of time in their current format. New start for example. Weve had a lot of questions about obviously after the withdrawal from inf has been in place since 1987, the result of these persistent violations by russia over time that were not being addressed. Where do we go next in a much more complex multifaceted Nuclear World . In 1987 when the inf treaty was concluded between gorbachev and reagan it was really just the u. S. And the soviet union that had these major arsenals with the capability of destroying each other. Since then so many other countries come into that space. China is the most one but, of course, we had some of the other Nuclear Powers appear on the horizon over time. Weve got pakistan and india that are constantly on the verge of a Nuclear Standoff that were deeply concerned about. We have all the existing Nuclear Powers and from the p5 the u. N. Security council where we stuck at issues like the nonproliferation treaty to deal with. Theres a complex set of issues here that we absolutely have to attend to and think weve got off to a belated start but at least reasonable start in getting back to the negotiating table, recent discussions in vienna but we havent figured out how to sequence the get. We are running against the clock. Thats one area which is on the agenda we really do have to take care of. I would have felt that the pandemic would be another but i think what we have sadly seen is every single country has got itself bogged down in its own national response, lack of response to the pandemic. Some of them have done excellent that it will peer weve seen or Scientific Community to Work Together, unprecedented level of cooperation. With countries like russia weekend and in the past. We help eradicate smallpox but the soviet soviet union during the cold war we help to do with polio and the campaign to push the back. Although sadly we have not eradicate it yet. We know we can do this but if all were doing is taking tactical hits at each other and continuing to convince ourselves that were in some confrontation when according to anywhere. The whole goal of policy over the last several years behind the scenes has been had we stabilize and then professionalize this relationship. Instead of the guys who just do dirty tricks for living which are always there and will always be trying to do this, how point but the guys from ministry of foreign affairs, all the professionals from the ministry of defense and the pentagon back together, have discussion about deconfliction and all the things that we were able to stabilize the relationship in the past and how can we get the guys and the various professional groups back to discussing the armscontrol agenda and how we have what and when used to call strategic stability restored . This is really the perfect segue to do what i promised we would do, which is talk a a bit about putin. When you talk about how do you empower diplomats to talk to each other, how do you empower kind of actual Security Professionals or sort of the uniformed military, the people who speak the same tactical language on our side its implicitly clear that you got to clear politics out of the way to some degree because it everything they say to one another become subject to the scrutiny of american politics they cant say anything and you know that better than anybody. On the russian side theres another problem and that appears to be Vladimir Putin, the image and reputation he has, the system that irans. It just doesnt seem like theres a lot of room and theres no oxygen for anything but putin and his agenda. How do you understand negotiating with putins russia, dealing with putins russia versus dealing with russia as such . The difficulty that we have Everybody Knows and you got a lot of people writing about this very eloquently and university or can in the blogs is this fusion of the Security Services with the state. We think about this in the soviet. Like a lot of more checks and balances there was division of how to succumb labor but maybe thats not the right way putting it but there was this stage and then there was the social Security Services which were run then on a fairly tight leash. We might have this image in the cold war thanks all the other kind of people writing about this, this was a james bond movies with spies running around all over the place. But these guys were under the oversight of the state. And you get to the situation we had since 2000 where putin has come out of the Security Services or the kgb to the backorders and they have become the state, all of these appointments of Security Officials from the various intelligence agencies in anyone putin the kremlin and cabinet never positions but also private business Everything Else can you got a state capture there. How do you move this into a different phase . It seems what putin has been trying to do himself is great i kind of our stable system out of all of this. I dont think hes by any stretch thinking of putting the Security Service out to pasture or turn it into domesticated animals in some way. In the way of thinking that through. Hes trying to buy all these recent constitutional amendments and kennan and others have been doing a lot of great analysis of this, putting the system on two different footing for the next several years and hes moving itself into this kind of elder statesman, head of state, was a constitutional monarch role. If he starts to see himself as something other than the title of the book, operative in the kremlin and the eldest statement, the man whos been apart one way another 20 years becomes almost the sort of eldest statement of the International Community as well. Can he start of the state think more like a state and less like this kind of set of Tactical Operations . My challenge out to the kremlin and the russians is okay, so if you can do that. Hes really trying to move himself into that different phase, and why are we doing all the still tactical fighting . I think they pop themselves into this vicious cycle of trying to hit as all the time, its a kind of feeling of restoring the balance in the kind of getting revenge for the sense of grievance that has permeated in russian politics since the end of the cold war. But this limits to that and if they really do want to achieve things, something they can be a measure of the legacy for putin in the system, armscontrol would be part of this but also stabilizing that relationship and figuring out how to put the russian state on a different trajectory after the pandemic. The russian economy is going to flatline. Its going to be affected by everybody elses large recessions and there asked me a different agenda move forward. Putin has to promise something to the population moving forward otherwise his brain is going to get stale we can very quickly. Theres aubry talks about stability turning into stagnation like a brezhnev, and it putin is in power from 2000 20002036, its not just in this competition to see who can be the longest serving leader, stalin, putin or any of the czars but really what it can do for the country and thats what he keeps saying hes going to do something for the country. While mudwrestling with the United States from his perpetuity isnt doing something for the country. This is a fascinating point to me as i think in a way without even having been asked the question that i intended as you have squared the circle. The difficulty in washington is not that are group of american thinkers about russia or about american Foreign Policy the think putin is great, who are naive about russia, inc. Its great that the exkgb men are many things and a taken over national wealth. Sometimes theres a sort of superficial depiction that thats what the debate is, people who sort of get putin in a eyed and the kgb in his eyes and so forth by people who are naive. In fact, most people the great its not a great thing for russia, not a great thing for the United States that putin behaves the way he behaves and the kgb yes, sir taken over so much of russia. The principal debate is about what do we do Going Forward . To be essentially write off working with that government, dealing with that government . Because you cannot trust these people, you morally should not empower them i have any sort of commerce broadly speaking with them, or do we have to find a way forward and what are you suggesting, tell me if i understand this correctly, is that there are some pathways by which russia can adjust its behavior to act more like the great power that it wants to be, and then we can deal with them, great power to great power . I think thats absolutely right. The whole quest since 2000 is to get russias cpac at the table. We have plenty of people writing about the whole framing for the presidency about restoring russia first domestically and restoring the part of the state after a period of disorganization in disarray in the 1990s, and then getting russia back in the mix is a great power with everybody acknowledging that, not just as Regional Power but on a global power projection. Weve seen that kind of every time theres been a comment about russia issues interested in europe, they kind of move a a bit further forward to show thats not the case. If we get any mistaken perceptions after like annexation of crimea and donbass, they were original power focus just on your, then the intervention in syria shows russia historic interest in the middle east, reinvigorating all ties with venezuela and the western hemisphere, conscious in latin america south america, libya, all of these are things russia showing hey, we still have the ability to project force even if it might be with a lighter thumbprint because we have enduring interest there, historic interests, you name it. We want to be at the table. To be at the table and not just in the purview of the United Nations table for russia is a member obviously of the permanent five, but to be on the table is of the issues yet to be at the table acting as a great power in a great power conversation not just kicking the hell out of everybody at the table or being under the table kind of trying to pull everybody down. That was a kind of point that i and many others tried to make over this last period that okay, we did it. You thought it was there again to mess about in 2016 and a lot of it is on us and the way react to it, things are going on in her own politics, but if we want to move forward and act together as great powers and having this big power conversation, lets just stop all of this messing about. Lets get real. So if theres more of these interventions and just messing about in 2020, were not going to be able to do that. So lets get past the tactical games and if you want to have a strategic conversation lets have it. Part of the problem is our domestic politics the way weve been dealing with all of this and also just the temptation that that seems of woman at times to people in the services at russia to just kind of keep on hitting us. At some point this got to be somebody saying okay lets just stop this, restrained ourselves and see where we get. I suspect they are not really going to do that until we get past november and into january and to see where things are headed. But we at least here in the u. S. Cannot start to try various levels what makes sense to have a sensible conversation about how do we deal with this, where do we want this kind of relationship to go, acknowledging the much larger complexity of Global Affairs at this moment. This is great, and we have as you might imagine a lot of questions coming in. What im going to try to do with our time in many is integrate as many of those questions into our conversation as we can, and if you could respond to that and a relatively compact what i think we get a fair number that i want you to everyone now when i could get anywhere near everybody. I want to start with one other thinkers directly on the point you made about a potential way forward in the next few years if russia can begin to act as the state. Sir John Scarlett from head of mi6, the chair, cochair of the Wilson Center Global Advisory council asks essentially whether putin is having an prevailed in this referendum, is a boost to his confidence that maybe permits them to do the kinds of things youre talking about, or is it actually a sign of weakness and insecurity in which case we wouldnt be solvable about the future . He adds i think the two go together or it may be that he could be an elder statesman but if he continues to be obsessed with the United States and the west and looking for opportunities to undermine us, doesnt that reflect that he just wont have the mindset to do that . I was just going to say that action i can shorten my response to this because i think that sir john action answer part of it at the end anything that makes the point very clearly, that if this retained this obsession with the United States as an adversary continuously, saw kind of geopolitical string the matter where it will be done will not get anywhere. Opening up another front in venezuela or new front in libya or where, in fact, in many cases sometimes our interest actually like a light entrance one to stabilize these particular regions. But always saying that if they have to be there and there some kind of clash that is inevitable, thats not going to get his anywhere. I do think the efforts to put in place the amendments came from both a a kind of a mixture of anxiety and confidence. I mean, most things are not black and white in any case. There was anxiety fit as you get closer to 2024 and the end of the current set of terms that putin was increasingly seen as a lame duck, at who is expecting him to leave, thats all the talk about the anniversary of lenin and his demise, was he going to get carried out in ina box or die in office . Is he going to be able to do what yeltsin did and create a successor operation successor . Can i be the successor . The berries thinking people around him. I think you wanted to put that off and just give a system a bit more time because there were questions about how the International Environment was going to take shape over this period. I think it was conference at the time when they announce these amendments that the u. S. Was somewhat preoccupied spinning on its own axle. China is likely to interfere given all the things that are kind of going on in china and the fact that got them recently Good Relationship with china. Europe has got brexit contend with and all kinds of other things going on but they are breathing space to push things through to stabilize the situation to make the Big Decisions and put them off. The risk of course is that the situation becomes more and more unpredictable and a lot of people will be looking to putin still to keep signaling where is this all headed. Sir john said if its all just headed into just perpetual cycles of confrontation with the u. S. Thats likely to be very helpful. The other thing is how are you going to refresh the country, the brand, the putin brand and the system for the rest of the 2020s with the pandemic, a global recession. One of the biggest crisis in the century, were it a fresh ideasd thats where they should be focusing on. I have to push more on that question. Look, you literally wrote the book, mr. Putin. There are these different kind of lenses on putin in the book in the form of chapters that i love putin companies demand but literally just see him attempt to be write his version of world war ii. Its very prescient and accurate study of the men but but i dont come away from that book with the impression that this is a guy who can change answer when not in fundamental ways especially given the importance of the formative early life and can a professional early life hp stuff that you talk about. Is it realistic to talk about a putin who can abandon a kind of lifelong obsession with confrontation with the United States . Yeah, i think look, find a middle change it difficult for everybody and its not something that we normally see but you can adopt. District at that. I did see towards into the book and looking back on the first version of it that putin did learn lessons from the past. Then he adapts his behavior towards them. Does that mean fundamental change . Perhaps not the people involved in the situation is evolving and use plan and hes always got contingencies. The risk is that they are fresh out of new ideas and theres an awful lot of people writing about this right now that theres not a kind of sense of where theyre heading. Were all in this predicament now. We are going to be in a fundamentally changed environment for all of us if we ever get to get into this pandemic anytime in the next couple of years. If this goes on for a lot longer we will all have to see fundamental change in the way that we do things. We are already doing it now. Who thought we be doing this by zoom . Theres all kinds of other, and went up into that weve not yet given up on the idea. You said it very beginning of the meeting in person. We havent fully undiminished change the way we do things either. This is all going to be a process. I do think again, i mean, theres a challenge it down to the russians compass got to be. We should make it from within our own system. If we start to susa think i can we change and alter the trajectory of where weve got stuck into this kind of perpetual vicious cycle of just in a tactical confrontation with russia, are they capable of moving forward or are they just stuck still any idea of the lone wolf geopolitical competition . Russia is a great power and not kind to seeing any room for cooperation or kind of in other way of doing things or doing business other than what they have known they been doing for decades now. Perhaps a a kind of the sidf the coin from a pattern of dysfunction to a possible future would be may be where were going out with china were we have a very businesslike pattern of talking to them dealing with them in working out for discussed because then everybody can do so. If a look at the last several months my impression is were getting into this kind of tactical titfortat conversation. For you especially the closure of the conflict must have brought back memories, the titfortat closure to what is your over all of how to use confrontation that is working now with china can benefit from weapons, from the u. S. Russian relationship but also how that triangle plays out and, of course, know it is standing still in this couple get a world. The russians dont want to find themselves pulled over into some opposing china block. On that front the idea of having sort of a a g7 focus on china d inviting russia along with south korea, australia, india, others. I dont think its a starter from the Russian Point of view. What we see, what you know, everybody listen to this nose look at the russiachina relationship is that the russians just do not want for their point of view sort of see some kind of repetition of a kind of massive opposing set of blocks with china and some kind of pulled over selected one side. Within like to try to play among come between the scenes, seems rather offering japan and other countries their good offices with china to kind of reshape some of the interactions in certain arenas like in the asiapacific, for example, sure i do think that get very worried by india, china standoff. Its very interesting because i havent seen a lot said by the russians by this one at that must be them some heartburn because that old territorial dispute that they thought the result with china along damore, circumstances change, who kno . Who wouldve expected china to have such a bloody confrontation with india and kill indian soldiers along the corridor. Thats kind of given pause for thought. If you then extrapolate from that from our own purposes just as youre suggesting, looking back over the cold war period and forget how we manage relationship with china moving forward, so many things we need to interact with china on over the pandemic in just a string of that obviously, avoiding military confrontation in the south china sea, the indopacific region and it seems to be imperative because it cant lead anything positive for anyone. Figure out how to factor china into arms control and how to get a handle on climate change. China is a major factor in all of these issues. Weve got to think about this very carefully. That then does lead into what ive been stressing again is how do we emphasize diplomacy and interactions . Obviously closing down concerts if they are being used for espionage for intelligence operations, that makes an awful lot of sense but the point is to go back to get value on diplomacy. Diplomacy is an instrument. Its not a reward for good behavior. Its what we should be doing. Thats getting to your point with russia. Where weve got ourselves into buying, we have reduced down the number of contacts. We cant have a sensible conversations. We need our Intel Services to be talking to each other professionals. We need our military to be talking to each other at all kinds of loans and not just having insults being holder. Weve had good set of relations with our chairman and weve got a lot of deconfliction going on. We have ambassador jeffrey edition running around on syria actually having sensible discussions with russia counterparts. We had the recent meeting in begin with Marshall Billingsley and Deputy Foreign minister and others. We know we can do this but we have to create a framework again. It cant be done while russia is the part of our domestic politics and everybody screaming about this. Similar with china we have to make sure very much china does become some kind of parties unless you enter politics. National security issue should not be partisan. They should not be politicized. They affect all of us and the risks of something getting out of control are far too high. We kind of should give our system a shock again to realize that we have to take this out of this Political Parties on domain and think about it sensible. If we cant do it on the congressional and senate level right now, think tanks, other entities at least we can have some kind of discussion on the contours which i dont think our mysteries to anyone. I think we would all be gently on the same page. We want to deter russia from doing the things that its been doing but we do want to find a different frame for our interaction. I think your line nationals could issues should not be partisan and should not be politicized, really ought to be inscribed in the marble of many think tank entry halls. Certainly we welcome that at the Wilson Center. I want to try to get in as many of these questions as i can some just going to read some of them, fiona, if you dont mind and ask for your quick take. Jennifer from cnn asks, can you reflect on how putin will see the u. S. Announcement of a drawdown of troops in germany and how we might use or respond to that . Yeah, i mean, all this, the germany, the troops come the whole kind of question but what natos posture is going to be is clearly a preoccupation for putin and others. I mean, for the military planters among the kind of the main protagonists there. Clearly theyre looking to see how serious we are about ensuring European Security in the way that we havent up until now. We Forward Deployed a number of troops in response to what russia did in ukraine with crimea and donbass, and also after the intervention in syria to deter further incursions of this kind. And make it very clear that there would be a tripwire of the substantial nature if russia contemplated any Major Military operation in the Baltic States or any of the kind of fragile neighboring countries. I think we also have to be aware that troops are not the only solution. Its really coordinated concerted action with our allies because its really the operations that fall short of the kind of fullscale military incursions that we have to be most worried about, the use of handouts and proxies, the pmcs, groups that gave been using wagner and others that weve seen in syria and around in africa as well. We had to basically push back against all of that kind of activity and we cant just do it i moving troops around. We have to do it in full concert with all of the allies and recognizing that the russians are going to keep probing and trying to kind of test how willing we are to maintain the existing defenses and how willing where to push back. The socket of the voice of pushing back. A lot of it would depend on whether this is just confrontation, whether troops are moved elsewhere and what else were doing beyond kind of moving men in uniform and equipment around. Let me ask another from Tracy Wilkinson of the Los Angeles Times is asking, knowing what you know about putin do you anticipate an october surprise either to about putin cement his gains during the trump era to help trumps reelection or simply to sell more chaos in the u. S. . Presumably some interference in the election. Sowing chaos is ben rhodes the goal of all of this. To really give most americans pause about the strength of our democracy and to kind of weekend our confidence in our own systems, and thats kind of been a hallmark of russian and soviet active measures for decades. Weve seen this on kind of a long timescale. I think we got a whole bunch of books that are out there right now that i can recommend on this kind of topic where we can really see this in action over a long suite history. We have to put this in context. If russia and putin and others think there is more to be gained by weakening the United States, by sowing discord and having people fight about electoral outcomes and yes, we will see that. But if we can get the message across theres more to be gained from trying to stabilize relationship and stop all of this, restrain a social doing it, then were not likely to see things on the same scale. Right now i think they are just seeing think too much to be gained from this and so a lot of it is just our own posture and our own willingness to deal with his head on and ethics our own house. Its much what difficult for them to have any kind of leverage if we have like mass voter turnout, for example, and if were having much more civil discourse in our own politics and we are not in this partisan warfare. They think a finished that when we see red and blue as enemies and we have divided interviews into opposing camps rather than thinking of ourselves on a shared endeavor. I want to jump on that very quickly because theres a bit of a trap there, a kind of perverse incentive happens when we pay a lot of attention sometimes motivated bipartisanship, other times just objective factors, its interesting, its important, someone needs to do the work but we end up reducing russia questions to questions of where russia is doing nefarious things to us. You get the sort of depictions of putin and russia not even just darth vader but increasingly stuff that almost has sort of russo phobic overtones and things like that. That in a sense seems to me almost deepens the vulnerability that youre talking about. If we build them up to these scary dark force it into daytime that gives them even more ammunition. How do you assess the balance between on the one hand, sort of staying measured in pounds and common keeping personal politics out of it but on the other hand, being acutely aware of what is going on . We have to be able to obsess why russia doing this in first place of my putin may think like this. That was when the read write the book and thats at the root of a lot of the fellowship, fellowships and programs and kind of sponsored research that you have at the Kennan Institute and Woodrow Wilson l think tanks and universities. Well try to uncover the deeper motivations and drivers. Were constantly talk about the drivers of Foreign Policy from own domestic policy similar with russia. People talk about the idea of strategic empathy figuring out what it is a makes the russians tick and try to understand that. It means youre trying to understand why theyre doing this. Then your to to do with that headon. Kind of, if they perceive the Security Threat here, why do they come hike we think about this, how was it the act in response to Security Threat . In my experience with the russians do as is a try to pret it. And look at what capability and capacity we have for action and the tide had it off even if our intent was never there to do something. We have to understand all that and as you say not get trapped into kind of thinking that everything is just framed by the activities of various entities that may or may not be run directly by the Russian Intelligence Services. We have fallen a trap in the media as well with all this. It is constant articles about it rather than looking at some of the deeper issues. That doesnt always make for good copy and it becomes confusing and convoluted. It makes it easy to come up with some simplistic explanation. Rep have a hard look at this. We got a much small, robust indepth reporting on china. A lot of the stuff already on china in the papers is extreme interesting and people are trying to delve into this. It seems a deeper understanding ironically of china now than of russia. Russia being a country that we been interacting with for an extraordinary long time and shine only rather recently coming to the forefront as a major interlocutor, though certainly and economic interlocutor for a period of time. We ought to have that same approach to russia as we do with china. Ill admit it theres a lot of anxiety about china but theres also a lot of very sensible discussions and books being written about china that are not filled with this kind of heavy breathing and semihysteria and we often get about russian. Theres a question that putin is a big part of that, the mystique that attaches to him. Theres a book called the putin mystique. I heard a report on the radio the other day i was all about some kind of new social Media Influencer technology and it was a very interesting kind of on the ground story about how this worked in in a chinese city of several Million People that ive not ever heard of and china is full of his wonderful stories but the really interesting thing to me about that report was that the entire report went through without any mention of xi jinping or the Chinese Communist party. Ukip picture a comparable story about something happening in russias region somewhere thats interesting important whether its fires protests or something in business or Energy Without talk about putin in the kremlin. It would be inaccurate to say thats because russia summit is more authoritarian the china. They are both authoritarian and the both of power verticals but i use significantly with time we have left to some putin questions because weve got a lot of putin questions like you said theyre good copy, we advertise this as a putin conversation and you what the book site you have to have been expecting them. Ambassador bill hill who we both know from asked youve met putin many times prior to 2017 but during your service on the nsc teaches anything to change her evaluation of him or any changes in putin over that time that became evident in his meetings with u. S. Representatives or his calls with president trump, et cetera . Yeah, i mean, i think in some respect what you see somebody whos going much more comfortable in the kind of position that hes been in. Heart of the obsession about putin and part of the explanation for what youre just kind of late out there but is that he is very consciously on up there too great a number of personas. The man without a Facebook Putin has decided that many faces on. We were trying to bring out in our book that we wrote was that he somebody was spent a lot of time thinking about his image and his brand and i was going to present himself beat bare chested riding around on horses the we havent seen xi jinping doing that. This is a very studied role for putin, every single one of those defenses and all these different guises has been deliberate to make connection to a domestic constituency or just to be signaling his vigor and activist to the rest of the world, hey, dont mess with me kind of thing. Weve got to kind of a situation now where the guy has been in power for so long, shes become very comfortable in the role and hes in something of a bubble. I do what is a yes lost his edge because hes an edgy guy in terms of the things he can do abroad but if you think hes kind of lost a bit of the feel of whats going on domestically and that is inevitable. Inevitable. Any leader who is in the country for very long period of time loses touch with whats happening across the country, or any political party. This is what we seen here in the United States, traditional parties have got complacent, kind of comfortable in their various stances. Completely missed a lot of trends that were happening on racial inequality, all kinds of issues that come to the fall ann more recent times that were kind of ignored. Or just cant dismiss. Putin runs that same risk. I did think in some of the interactions although hes achieved extremely well prepared some of them he he she is going to the motion and son hes kind of slightly lays response to a few things here and there, just kind of still going over old tropes or all formats. This is still a guy who really prepares and is and this kind s trying to be one step ahead. Also he yes a great advantage w that the system, people around them all Work Together for so long. Participation in the time of interacting with we kept changing players all the time. Living on the kind of relationship at the top contact and every other level of interlocutors kind of falling by the wayside which gives putin an incredible advantage. I can see that also adds and i think to a bit of a sense of laziness about it. He doesnt have to try so hard and he do think hes probably become complacent in thinking that kind of the International Front everything hes been doing has been working and so again it becomes less of an incentive to do something differently although domestically with the protests, its showing just to keep on his toes. He is going to be forced like anybody else is inevitably to reckon with the fact the country is changing underneath it on while he might not have fundamentally changed, he has adapted in this bubble. Its not like he is out and about like everyman in all kinds of different corners and the amount of information coming into him, good question about how accurate it is or how much he really gets a kind of feel for what is actually happening. Thats actually a great segue because of a number of questions about putins notion of russian nationalism, is a nationalist, what does russian patriotism mean for him . It sounds to me like youre safer if its a bit frozen, it something that was formed by a set of experiences world war ii memory 1970s what have you, resentment after the 90s but its kind of stuck and is not adapting to rush today. Would you agree . There are some kind of aspects of this which are worth bearing in mind. When he goes after everybodys weaknesses and cleavages and divisions be they racial, ethnic, religious kind of, you name it, hes very careful about that at home and thats also a memory from the 1990s of course from the collapse of the soviet union all of the International Conflict that emergent notches in russia itself with chechnya or talk to stand and elsewhere, the rise of islamist movements, but also what happened on the periphery. And all the kind of civil wars in places like pakistan and the outbreaks, putin has been very careful to great a big tent sense of russian nationals. Its been pretty nationalism. We talked about it as although meaning the differentiation between a kind of russian state while identity, which can be multifaceted, multiconfessional multiethnic and something that is narrowly russian ethnic and russian orthodox. And yet if i can point out that line very finally. The constitutional amendment that just brought a huge element of traditional risky russian mess around the language, the religion god, everything. Thats what i is going to segue into that because i was saying that also shows he thinks kind of that is all been consolidated by now and if they thats a risk. Because the way he played from the 90s, the 20 odd years, was trying to seal kind of those divisions. Now hes falling into the temptation that others have come against a point of being a bit complacent, thinking that is a rocksolid base. We see this happening all over the place where theres a kind of sense of consolidating around one major set of identities. Who really runs the risk of their opening up again come risks that are still there behind the scenes. Hes always trying to be very careful about playing with muslim peoples of the Russian Federation who of course have a long history just as long as a history of russian orthodoxy. He always emphasizes the indigenous religions of russia, not just orthodoxy but islam, judaism and buddhism but you can see hes getting into the mentions of what might seem trivial at almost humorous to others fighting shaman is an and other fringe groups, but thats all very dangerous point he does know better than that buddies fairly confident he can pander right now to this larger base. I worry about that. I worry that is again a failure to see how things have evolved. They do an awful lot of polling but people dont as we all know always give their full views in all of this polling. So i think he ought to tread a look bit more carefully and i think that fairly dew point is this sort of like popular nationalist sentiment has been on the ascendancy across the europol globally here in the u. S. As well but i think a lot of Development Shows that this may be otherwise. If i were them i wouldnt have try to put all that into the constitution that maybe things in amending it and you could amend it again. Its trying to consolidate everything theyve been doing for the last 20 years. In our final two minutes, the owner, and i just have to apologize to all of the wonderful questioners whose questions of what reached a people whose questions i stole without exhibiting to the name, i like to do that, too, but i cant not ask at this afternoon. When Vladimir Putin looks at the 2020s u. S. Election, how does he size of these two alternative american futures, and what would be your advice whoever takes the oath of office in january 2021 as to how to deal with this guy . Putin is looking so he can get out of it no matter who it is. Clearly he wants to have a weaker u. S. President , doesnt matter who, and you know he will be looking to see if thats the kind of the case but the more the u. S. Is bogged down in its own internal contradictions in the week of the present is domestically it also perceived internationally, the less likely it is obvious to try to restore a leadership role insofar as that might be a leadership of some kind of common cause against russia. Everything is always through the prism of what does this mean for us rather than kind of a sort of a larger sense. All been in this together in the series the problems that weve got to contend with. So stuck in to be looking it to some, could alter us to frame thats for sure. Hes going to look at as more of whats in it for us of what could be against us in this outcome. I think he wants to basically have a fairly diminished u. S. President no matter who it is, kind of a u. S. Body politic thats all kind of wound around its own axle and is not projecting anything out against russia. They dont want more sanctions and the going to try to kind of feed the divisions, not just at home in the u. S. But among u. S. And its allies to make sure to head this off. That leads to what i would advise whoever is going to be the president after january, and the new administration, is take a serious look at russia, try to get out of our domestic politics and its going to be difficult given the current configuration of the way things are with anyway, we all know what were talking about here. But then start to think how we work with our allies. Because my experience is its own when we got it unified command front with somebody else not necessarily because rush was a threat but as a problem we have to do with and to manage that weve managed to make some headway. It doesnt all involve moving troops around and are come diplomas is pretty key. Its how we can see of reforming our own institutions, how we think about our relationships with other key players. We have to be on the same page. Thats when the only solution where to do with china. The one thing we do have to be mindful of is not keep pushing china and russia together because the reason that the chinarussian relationship looks more robust than pressman of us would anticipated looking at you to go is because we have been pushing the two of them together with their own policy so we have to think very carefully about how we handle that as well. No question. Theres a tremendous amount in there but all of which i agree with and every element of which probably requires quite a lot of followup. In particular now that putin has extended his possible state office until 2036 i think im among many people who hope you do yet another edition of mr. Putin with insights about the recent past in the future but whatever you write, what have you say we will be paying close attention. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you, everybody for tuning in. Thank you to my apologies to the many, many great questioners i didnt get to. See you next time. Thanks very much, matt, and best wishes to everybody out there. Thank you. Booktv on cspan2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. Coming up sunday at noon eastern on in depth our live to our conversation with u. S. Combat veteran and Rhodes Scholar wes moore author of several books including the other wes moore, the work, and his latest, five days, the fiery reckoning of an american city. He will be taking your phone calls, facebook, and tweets. At 9 p. M. Eastern on after words founder and president of environmental progress on what he calls apocalyptic environmentalism. Hes interviewed by Columbia University earth institute. Watch booktv on cspan2 sunday. Along with briefings on the coronavirus pandemic, so to speak oral arguments and decisions. Thanks for coming out and saying hello, everybody. The latest from campaign 2020. Be a part of the conversation every day with our live callin program, washington journal. If you missed any of our live coverage, watch anytime on demand at cspan. Org or listen on the go with the free cspan radio app. President trump says he opposes mailin voting for the upcoming election because of the possibility of fraud. Next forum for conservative women hold on voting. We can get started. Im the Public Relations officer for the center for conservative women. Happy to have