With all of our upcoming events, podcasts and publications and more on our website at wilsoncenter. Org and in particular, i want to invite you to give a listen to our podcast reference to the x article and the newest podcast, the russia file. Let me just remind everybody tut the conversation and weve already gotten quite a few of them, you can submit questions by email, and please list your name and affiliation as if a live event at the wilson kennan center, and im more likely to call out than if youre unidentified. And fiona hill from Brookings Institution and as many of you know for the Russian Affairs on the National Security council. That was 201719. From 2006, National Intelligence office for russia and eurasia at the National Intelligence council ap coauthor of the wellreceived and widery read book mr. Putin, operative in the kremlin, an update of a previous book. And i want it note that the two of them authored a useful piece still for those of us thinking about russias development and infrastructure challenges and those havent gone away. Fiona, i want to open it up right away and ask you the central question and i think you and i agree on the difficulty of this. Why . Why is it so hard to talk about russia and u. S. And russia relations in what might be considered a productive way, especially here in washington . Well, i mean the obvious answer what happened in 2016 in terms of the Russian Operations to try to interfere and influence in the elections which of course, became on the backdrop of a highly contentious president ial Election Campaign and extreme polarization and a lot of parties on divide. So, although, you know, what russia did in 2016 in terms of scale wasnt that considerable, it had a much larger amplified impact than i think than the russians anticipated. And certainly, the failure of imagination of things that the russia did in the u. S. Which are no different from operation and measures, influence operation, disinformation options carried out in other places going back through the cold war and even back to an era. This is kind of something that the russians, Intelligence Services have just done as a matter of cause, and thinking this is fair game in the larger of all scheme of things. I think even there, theyre scratching their heads about the impact and the scale of the impact that they had. And over ukraine, georgia, or somewhere else would have an impact here and its because we were uniquely vulnerable in that period, given the nature of our domestic politics. And so as a result of that, russia has become a factor in our politics. Its endless conspiracy theories, its the subject of endless congressional hearings and everything still going on now. Were still trying to unpack what happened in 2016 and a lot of what happened is on our own, you know, sets of interaction and as a result, we cant take russia out of that complexity and put it to one side in the way that we really should do to assess, you know, where do we want this sort of interaction with russia to go. Its high time we did that. We cant keep living in this frame of 2016 forever. And russia itself is still convinced, having interactions and various working groups with russian colleagues, that the relationship between the United States and russia is still framed in some kind of geopolitical competition and some of the people engaged at the kennan Wilson Center and think tanks, 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 europe. Between ourselves, you know, we might have been at the end of world war ii, you know, the Transatlantic Alliance has been developing these transnation transnational were having a hard time having a conversation about russia because of the preexisting frames so its high time we do that and now is as good as anytime, honestly, with the 2020 election appearing quickly on the horizon and what happens after that. In effect, i think what im hearing you say, something ive thought this for a long time as well, essentially that theres an instrument that is always available to an adversary. In this case its russia, or lets just say, in this case its russia, but it could be almost anyone else. If you could drag participants or competitors in the messy, chaotic, you know, very high stakes american Political Landscape into your issues, then in effect, you may be able to swing the way your issue goes on the international level. On the level of diplomacy and negotiation. In effect, its sort of 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 you know, it would be a rational thing to do. And people would say, get into the fray as well. Its like mud wrestling, hey im going to hit you, youre going to hit, and there were certain issues we were trying to deal with in a more strategic sense. Annexation of crimea, which was the first real, you know, talk about, you know, european since world war ii, yes, the incursion of turkey into cypress in 1974 and the european space. But this really is on the, you know, definitely level about what russia did in terms of annexing crimea and putting it back into the Russian Federation and doing this whole kind of reversal of history here. And then of course, theres the war, the intervention in syria. And theres all kinds of things we can point to. I could go on, obviously, where we thought we had to have a reaction. That again, shouldnt be the only frame, we have to assess all of these issues to figure out how were going to move forward. Not to constantly be pulled back to the same discussions. In it junk it your with the pandemic, and quite this Climate Crisis and this is the first day in d. C. We havent been in the 90s, and a lot of it could be when i step outside again. We all know that things are happening here that we need to focus on and to address. And the more that were in this tactical mud wrestling 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 would have traditionally been the u. S. Russia agenda, kind of the big bilateral issues and arms control and we have different perspectives and weve gone to manage these things and then we have the global challenges and the Global Pandemic and trafficking and terror. The last few years when so much of that agenda has been out by just communicating as you eloquently described it, whats left on the agenda if you were to set it for today . I think that were at this particular juncture where we could hope for some traction on arms control. I think every one of us agrees that this is a necessary endeavor. We have arms control treaties that are running out of time in their former, and new starts, for example. We have a lot of questions about, you know, obviously after the withdrawal from ins, you know, which is obviously in person withdraw the results, the violations by russia at the time that werent being addressed, where do we go next and in a much more complex and multifaceted nuclear world. In 1987 when the inf treaty was concluded, between gorbachev and reagan, and the soviet union, the arsenal and capable of destroying each other. And others are in the space. And china, and Nuclear Powers appear on the horizon over time. We have got pakistan and india constantly on the verge of a nuclear standoff, deep concern about. We have the existing Nuclear Power and the p5, u. N. Security council and issues like the nonproliferation treaty to deal with. Theres a complex set of issues here that we absolutely have to attend to and i think that weve got off to a belated start, but at least a reasonable start in getting back to the negotiating table, you know, recent discussions in vienna, but we havent figured out how to sequence yet. Were running against the clock. So, i think thats one area which we really do have to take care of. And i would have hoped that the pandemic would be another. So i think what weve sadly seen is every single country has got bogged down in its own national response, a lack of response to the pandemic. I mean, some of them have done extraordinarily well and others behind the scenes, unprecedented the level of cooperation. And countries that have done that in the past, we helped eradicate small pox and the soviet union, even during the cold war, we know we can do this. What were doing is taking tactical hits to each other and continuing to convince ourselves were in some confrontation, were not going to get anywhere. So the whole goal of policies over the last several years behind the scenes have been how do we stabilize and then professionalize this relationship and some of the guys do dirty tricks for a living and always there and trying to do this, how can we put the guides from the ministry of foreign affairs, all the professionals from the ministry of defense in the pentagon back together. Have discussions about deconfliction and all the things that we were able to stabilize a relationship in the past, how can we get the guys and the various professional groups back to discussing the arms control agenda and how we have, what everyone used to call strategic stability restored. I mean, this is really the perfect segue to do what i promised you to do, which is talk a bit about putin. When you talk about how do you empower diplomates to talk to each other. How do you empower, actually security professionals, the uniforms, the military, and speak between technical language. On our side its implicitly clear that youve got to clear politics out of the way to some degree because if everything they say to one another becomes the subject of scrutiny of policy, they cant say anything, you know that better than anybody. On the russian said there is another problem, that problem appears to be Vladimir Putin, the image and reputation that he has, the system that he runs, just doesnt seem like theres a lot of room for theres no oxygen for anything, but putin and his agenda. How do you understand negotiating putins russia or dealing with putins russia versus dealing with russia as such. Well, the system that we have there, Everybody Knows and the people its a fusion of the Security Services with the state. And we think about this, in the soviet period there were a lot more checks and balances and divisions of i want to say that maybe not the right way of putting it, but there was the state and there was the social Security Services run on a tight leash. In the cold war, the other kind of people, you know, writing about this, this is a james bond movie, spies running around all over the place, but these guys were under the oversight of the state. When you get to a situation that weve had in 2000, putin has come out of the Security Services, kgb through the back corridors and they have become the state, all of these appointments of Security Officials from the various intelligence agencies in and around putin and the cabinet and everything else. How do you move this into a different phase . Now, it seems that what putin has been trying to do himself is a system involved in this. I dont think hes by any stretch thinking about putting the Security Services out to pasture or sort of turn them into domesticated animals in some way, in kind of thinking that through, but hes trying to, by all of these recent constitutional amendments and others have been doing all of this analysis of this, putting the system on to a different something for the next several years, ands moving himself into this kind of elder statesman, head of state, quasi Constitution Constitutional monocle. As he sees himself something as elder statesman, in power for 20 years, sort of an elder statesman of the International Community as well, can he still have them think like a state and less like kind of a tactical operation. And in my challenge out to the kremlin and the russians would be okay, show us you can do that. If hes trying to move himself into that different phase why are we doing all of this tactical fighting . Because i think in this vicious cycle of trying to hit us all the time, its the kind of feeling of, you know, restoring the balance and the kind of getting revenge for some grievance thats permeated in russian politics since the end of the cold war. But there are limits to this and if they want to achieve something of a legacy for putin in the system, a part of this and stabilizing that relationship and figuring out how to put, you know, the russia state on a different trajectory after the pandemic. The russian economys going to flatline. Its going to be affected by everybody elses large restrictions, and there has to be a different agenda to move forward and putin has to prove something to the population, and moving forward, its going to get stale again quickly. Theres talk about stability turning into stagnation and putin is in power from 2000 to 2036. Its not just in this competition to see who can be the longest serving, you know, leader, following putin or any of the czars, but really, what are you going to do for the country and thats what he keeps saying, hes going to do something for the country. Well, mud wrestling with the United States until perpetuity is not going something for the country. I think in a way without having been asked the question i intended ask, you squared the circle. The difficulty in washington is not that there are a group of american thinkers about russia, who think that putin is great, naive about russia and think its great an exkgb man is running, and sometimes theres a sort of superficial picture thats what the debate is, people who get putin and cleareyed and see kgb in his eyes and so forth and who are naive. Its not a great thing for russia, not great for the United States that putin behaves the way he behaves and kgb has taken over so much of russia. The principal debate, do we essentially write off working with that government, you cannot trust these people, you should not morally empower them by any Congress Speaking with them or do we have to find a way forward. And suggesting, tell me if i understand this correctly, there 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 . Yeah, i think youre right, that the whole quest, you know, since 2000 to get russias seat back to the table. We have plenty of people writing about the whole framing, the presidency about restoring russia domestically and restoring the power of the state after a period of disorganization and disarray in 1990s, and then, you know, getting russia back in the mix as a great power with everybody acknowledging that and not just a Regional Power, but one with global power projection. Weve seen that kind of, every time theres been a comment, you know, about oh, russia is just interested in europe, to kind of move a bit further forward to show thats actually not the case and if we got any mistake mistaken perceptions after crimea and a Regional Power focus just on europe, then the intervention in syria, you know, shows that there will be a historic interest in the middle east. You know, reinvigorating ties with venezuela and the western hemisphere and country, latin, south america, africa, libya, you know, all of these are things that russia is showing, hey, weve got the ability to project for because we have enduring, historic interest, you name it. We want to be at the table. Well, to be at the table, and not just in the purview of the United Nations table, russia is a member obviously of the permanent five, but to be on the table, and at the table, you know, acting as a great power and part of not just kicking the hell out of everybody, trying to pull everybody down. And now is kind of the point that i and many others, you know, tried to make on this last period, that, 0 being okay, we get it. You felt it was fair game to mess about in 2019 and a lot of it is on us, and react to it and things going on in our 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. And its more of these interventions and just messing about in 2020, were not going to be able to do that. Lets get past the tactical games and if you want to have a strategic conversation, lets have it. You know, and part of the problem is, of course, our domestic politics the way that weve been dealing with this and also temptation that seems overwhelming, and russia keep on hitting us. You know, so at some point, theres got to be somebody saying, lets stop this and restrain ourselves and i suspect theyre not going to do that until we get past november and january and see where things are headed, but we at least here in the u. S. Can start to try, you know, various levels that make sense, to have a sensible conversation about, you know, how do we deal with it, why do we want this, you know, kind of relationship to go, acknowledging, the much larger complexity of global affairs. And this is when we have, you might imagine, a lot of questions coming in and so what im going to try to do with the time remaining, integrate as many of the conversations as we can, and if you can respond to them in a relatively compact way, i think youll get a fair number. I apologize to everyone now, were not going to get near everybody. I want to start with one directly on the point that you made about you know, a potential way forward in the next few years if russia can begin to act as a state. And john starr, head of mi6, and the chair of the Advisory Council asked essentially whether putin, having prevailed in in referendum is a boost to his confidence permission to do the kind of things youre talking about or is it a sign of weakness and insecurity, in which case he wouldnt be so hopeful about the future and he adds, i think, the two go together. 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 underminus, doesnt that reflect that he just wont have the mindset to do that . Im. [laughter] i was just going to say i can shorten my response to this because i think, you know, that john actually at the end, makes the point very clearly that if this retains if obsession with the United States adversary, and the geopolitical struggle no matter where it may be, were not going to get anywhere. Opening up another front in venezuela or a new front in libya, in many cases sometimes are actually a line in terms of wanting to stabilize these, you know, particular regions. But always, you know, seeing where they have to be there and you know, theres some kind of clash that is inevitable. Thats not going to get anywhere. I do think that the efforts to, you know, put in place the amendments came from both kind of a mixture of anxiety and confidence. I mean, among things that are not that black and white. And as you get closer to 2024 and the end of the sort of terms, that putin was increasingly seen as a lame duck. Everyone is expecting him to leave. Theres always talk of the anniversary of lenin and his demise, is he going to get carried out in a box, in the office, and a successor operations, and can i be the successor . And that might be the very thinking of people around him and i think he wanted to pop put that off and gave the system time. And how the International Environment was going to take shape over this period. Now, of his confidence at the time they announced this, spinning on its own axle, and china, the things going on in china and the fact theyve got a relationship with china and brecks brexit to contend with and breathing space to push things there and stabilize the space and put them off. There is some situations where the situation is more and more unpredictable and all the people are hooking looking to putin, where is this headed. A confrontation is not going to be helpful and the other thing, how are you going to refresh the country, the brand, the putin brand in the system for, you know, the rest of the 2020s, you know, with a pandemic, a global recession and one of the biggest in a century, where are the fresh ideas . I think they should be focusing on that. I have to push a little more on that question, look, you literally wrote the book, mr. Putin. And there are these different lenses on putin in the book and chapters i love putin the history man and you literally see him attempt to be the professor of history and his version of the world war ii history. I think its very prescient, very accurate study of the man, but i dont come away from the book that this is a guy who can change and certainly not in a fundamental way. Especially given the formative, kind of professional early life and kgb stuff that you talk about. Is it realistic to talk about a putin who can abandon a kind of life long obsession with confrontation with the United States . Some fundamental change is difficult for everybody and not something that we normally see, but you can adapt. And i did, you know, see towards the end of the book and looking back on the first versi version, putin did learn lessons and adapted behavior from them. Does that mean fundamental change . Perhaps not, but hes a plumber and hes got contingencies. I think also, the risk theyre fresh out of new ideas. I think theres an awful lot of people writing about this right now. That theres not a kind of a sense of where theyre heading. You know, were all in this predictment now and we are going to be in a fundamentally changed environment for all of us. If this goes on for longer, we are going to have to see the fundamental change in the way that we do things. Were already doing it now. And he thought we would be doing this. And were adapting to that, but we have not yet given up on the idea. You said at the beginning of meeting again in person, we havent fully fundamentally changed things either. This is going to be a process, but i think, i mean, again, theres a challenge down to the russians, theres got to be, to make it within our own system. If we start to seriously think how can we change and the trajectory where we got stuck into this kind of perpetual vicious cycle of a tactical confrontation in russia, are they capable of moving forward, too, or stuck in the idea of the lone wolf, geopolitical competition and russia was a great power and not, you know, seeing any room for cooperation or any other way of doing things or doing business other than what we have theyve been doing for decades now. So perhaps a kind of other side of the coin from a pattern of dysfunction to a possible future that looks a little better would be maybe where were going now with china, right. Where we have a businesslike pattern of talking with them, dealing with them. Working out our disagreements because shall chooses to do so, but if you look at the last several months, my impression, were getting into this kind of tactical titfortat confrontation and for you especially, the closure of the consulate, i imagine, must have brought back memories of 2018 and titfortat and expulsion and so forth. Whats your sense of overall now the u. S. Confrontation thats emerging now with china can benefit from lessons from, you know, the u. S. Russia relationship and how that plays out, and nobody is standing still in this complicated world. The russians dont want to find themselves pull over in a china block. And having a sort of g7 on china and inviting russia, along with south korea, australia, india, others. I dont think is a starter from the Russian Point of view. What you see and what you know and everybody else listening to this knows who have been working on russia and looking at the russiachina relationship, the russians do not want for their point of view as seen as some kind of a repetition of a massive opposing sort of box with china and kind of pulled over to one side. Would they like to play in among the between the seams, offering japan and other countries, for example, offices in china to kind of reshared some of the interactions and arenas like in the asia pacific, for example . Sure, i do think theyve got very worried about indiachinas standoff. Its interesting because i havent seen a lot side by the russians in this one, but that must be giving them heartburn because the territorial dispute is china, and circumstances change, who knows . Who would have suspected china to have such a bloody confrontation with india, and soldiers at the corridor. And if you then kind of extrapolate from that from our own purposes as youre suggesting, looking back over the cold war period and figure out how we managed that with china going forward, there are so many things we need to interact with china on, on the pandemic. And its avoiding military confrontation and the south china seas. The indopacific region and it seems to be imperative. Certainly have to factor china in the control. And how to get a handle on it. China is a factor in all of these issues. Weve got to think about this carefully. Enough then does lead into and what ive been stressing again, how do we emphasize diplomacy and interactions . Obviously, closing down news of espionage for intelligence operations that makes an awful lot of sense, but the point is always to go back to get to value on diplomacy. Its a instrumen instrument, it reward for good behavior, what we should be doing getting to your point with russia, weve got ourselves into a bind. We have reduced down the number of contacts. We cant have the sensible conversations, we need them to be talking as professionals. We need your militaries to be talking to each other, all kind of level not just insults being hurled. Weve had a good set of relatio relations, and conflicts, and weve had sensible discussions with russian counterparts. Meetings in vienna with others. We know we can do this, but we have to create the framework again. And it cant be done while russia is still part of our domestic politics and everybody is screaming about it. Similar with china. We have to make sure very much china isnt an issue in our politics. These issues should not be politicized. They affect all of us. And the risks are far too high. So with the kind of shock again to realize that we have to take this out of this political partys own domain and think about it. If we cant do it on a Congressional Senate level right now, think tanks, other entities, at least we can have some kind of discussion. Which i dont think think its mysterious to everyone. I think were generally on the same page. We want to deter russia from doing the things its been doing. We want to find a different frame for our reaction. I think your line National Security issues should not be partisan, it should not be politicized. It ought to be inscribed in the marble of many think tank entry halls. Certainly, at the Wilson Center. Want to try to get in as many questions as we can. Im going to read some of them, if you dont mind, and get your quick take. Jennifer from cnn, can you request how putin will see the u. S. Announcement of a drawdown of troops in germany and how they might use a response to that . Yeah, on all of this, the germany, the troops, the whole kind of question what natos posture is going to be is clearly preoccupation for putin and others, and among the kind of main protagonist key. Theyre looking to see how serious we have on European Security up until now. We Forward Deployed a number of troops in response to what russia did in ukraine, with crimea and syria to deter further incursions of this kind. And make it very clear that there would be a trip wire of substantial nature if russia contemplated any Major Military operation in the Baltic States or any of the kind of fra guile neighboring countries. I think we also have to be aware that troops are not the only solution. Its a coordinated concerted action with our allies, you know, its really the operations that fall short of these kind of full scale military incursions that we have to be most worried about, the use of proxies and pmcs, paramilitary groups they have been using, wagner and others that weve seen in syria and in and around, in africa as well. We have to basically push back against all of that kind of activity. And we cant just do it by, you know, moving troops around. We have to do it in full concert with the allies and recognizing that, you know, the russians are going to keep probing and trying to kind of test how willing we are to mention existing defenses and how willing we are to push back. Because there are all kind of different ways of pushing back. A lot of it would depend on whether this is kind after rotation, whether, you know, troops are moved elsewhere. And what else were doing beyond moving uniforms and equipment around. Let me ask another from Tracy Wilkinson from the los angeles times. Knowing what you know about putin, do you anticipate an october surprise, in the gains in the trump era to helping trumps reelection or simply to sew more chaos in the u. S. . There will be some interference in the election. Well, sewing chaos in this, give americans pause in terms of their democracy and we can have confidence in our own systems and thats kind of been the hall mark of russia and serbia to active measures for decades. You know, weve seen this on, you know, kind of a long time scale. And you know, i think weve got a whole bunch of books right now that i can interact, on this topic and we can see this in action. We have to put this in context. You know, if russia and putin and others think that theres more to begin by weakening the United States, by sewing discord and having people fight about election outcomes, yes, well see that. If we can get the message across, theres more to begin from trying to stabilize the relationship and stop this, and restrain ourselves from doing it. Then were not likely to see things on the same scale. Right now, i think that theyre just seeing too much begin from this. And so a lot of it is just our own posture and our own willingness to fix our own, you know, house. So its much more difficult for them to have any kind of leverage, if we have the turnout, position, if were having much more civil discourse in our own politics. And they take advantage of when we see red and blue as enemies and weve divided the u. S. Into opposing camps, rather than thinking about a shared endeavor. So i want to jump on that point quickly, because i think theres a bit of a trap, when we pay a lot of attention, sometimes motivated by partisanship. Other times, just the fact that its interesting, its important. Someone needs to do the work, but we end up kind of reducing russia questions to questions of where russia is doing the various things to us. So you get these sort of depictions of russia and stuff that has overtones and things like that. That in a sense actually, seems to me, almost deepens the vulnerability that youre talking about. If we build them up to be these scary, dark forces that can do anything at anytime, that actually gives them even more ammunition. So how do you assess the balance on the one hand, sort of staying measured and balanced and keeping politics out of it and being an acutely aware of whats going on. We have to look at why russia is doing this and one of the reasons for writing the book and thats at the root of the fellowship and the fellowships and programs and kind of that you have at the Kennan Institute and think tanks and universities. Were trying to uncover, rather, the deeper motivations and drivers. I mean, were constantly talking about the drivers from policies from our own domestic policy and people talk about the idea of strategic empathy, and figuring out what makes the russians tick and trying to understand that doesnt mean youre appeasing him in any way, youre trying to understand why youre doing this and you have to deal with this headon. To see the Security Threat here, why today . How can we think about this . How is it that they act in response to a Security Threat . Because in my experience, the russians try to preempt this. They look at what capability that we have, and even if our intent was never there to do something. So we have to understand that. And should not get trapped into kind of thinking that everything is just framed by, you know, the activities of various entities that may or may not be run directly by the russia russians Intelligence Services. And we have all of this. And its constant articles about it, rather than looking at some of, you know, the deeper issues. Now, that doesnt always make for good copy and its convoluted and much easier to kind of come up with simplistic explanation, but we have to have a hard look at this. Weve got a much more robust and indepth reporting on china. A lot of stuff that im reading on china and the paper is extremely interesting because people are trying to delve into this and once you receive the deeper understanding of china now than of russia, russia, you know, being the country that weve been interacting with for an extraordinarily long period of time and china recently coming to the forefront as a major interlocutor, and certainly an economic interlocutor for a period of time. We all have that same approach to russia as we do with china. And admitted, too, theres a lot of anxiety about china and a lot of very sensible discussions and books being written about china than with this kind of heavy breathing and semi hysteria that we often get with russia. Theres no question that putin is a big part of that, as you attach to the book. You know, i heard a report on the radio the other day that was all about some kind of, you know, new social media influence or technology, its an interesting kind of on the down story about how this works in a chinese city of several Million People i have not ever heard of and china is full of these wonderful stories. The 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 and you cant picture a comparable story of something happening in russias regions thats important, whether its fires, protests, something in business or energy, without talk about putin and the kremlin. And i think it would be inaccurate to say that thats because russia somehow is more authoritarian than china. They both are authoritarian. And can i use that to pivot in the time we have left for some putin questions. We have questions about putin and we advertised this as a putin conversation. You have to be expecting it. Ambassador bill hill we both know from a fellow and an Advisory Council member asked, fiona, youve met putin many times prior to 2017, during your service, did you see anything to change your evaluation of him or changes in putin over that time that became evident in his meetings with u. S. Representatives or calls to President Trump . Yeah, i mean, i think in some respects, i mean, what you see is somebody who has grown much more comfortable, you know, in kind of the position hes been in. Part of the obsession about putin and part of the explanation for what youve kind of laid out there, is that he has consciously gone out there to create a number of personas. You know, the book putin put many faces on. s been something for everybody. And trying to bring up the prison book that we wrote, that hes somebody who has a lot about his brand and present himself, be barechested and riding a horse. You dont see jinping like that. And all of these have been deliberate to make a connection to a domestic constituency or just to be signaling his vigor and activeness to the rest of the world, hey, dont mess with me kind of thing. Weve got a situation where the guy has been in power so long. Hes been comfortable in the role and hes in something of a bubble. And in terms of things he can do abroad, but i do think hes kind of lost a little of the feel of whats going on domestically. Enough is inevitable. Inevitable. Any leader who is in a country for a very long period of time loses touch, you know, with whats happening across the country or any political party. I mean, this is what weve seen here in the United States. The parties have gotten complacent and kind of comfortable in their various stances and completely missed a lot of trends that were happening on racial inequality, you know, all kind of issues that, you know, come to the fore in more recent times that were kind of ignored or just kind of dismissed. I think that putin runs that same rink. I think that some of the reactions, some hes going through the motions and kind of slightly, kind of lazy response to a few things here and there, you know, kind of still going over all old this is a guy who is somewhat prepared and trying to be one step ahead. He has a great advantage, the system, people working around him been there so long and an advantage in times, when we kept changing players all the time. League only kind of the relationship at the top intact. And every other, now, level of interlocutor kind of falling by the way side which gives putin an incredible advantage. And you can see it adds into the sense of laziness about it. He doesnt really have to try so hard and i do think hes probably complacent kind of everything on the international front, everythings doing is working and kind of a less incentive to do something differently. Domestically with the protests elsewhere, it shows he has to keep on his toes. Hes going to be forced to reckon with the fact that the country is changing and while not fundamentally changed. But adapted in a bubble. Its not like hes out and about like every man in all kind of different corners and the amount of information coming in to him. Good question about how accurate it is. Or how much it really gets a feel for what is actually happening. Thats actually a great segue because we have a number of questions about the russian nationalism, being a nationalist and the russian patriots. It sound like its something that was formed by a set of experiences, world war ii memory 1970s, what have you, resentment after the 90s, its kind of stuck and hes not adapting to russia today. Would you agree with this . He goes after everybodys weaknesses, racial, ethnic, religion kind of, you know, you name it, hes very careful about at home and stock is a memory from the 1990s, from the soviet union all of the conflict that emerged not just in russia itself with chechnya or kind of places elsewhere, islamist movements, you know, but also what happened on the periphery and all the kind civil wars, kind of outbreaks. Putin has been very careful for a big sense of russian nationalism. Imperial nationalism. We talk about it, although meaning the different nation between the kind of a russian state identity which can be multifaceted, multiconfessional, multiethnic and something thats narrowly, russian, ethnic and russian orthodox. And yet if i can that line, you know, very finely. But the constitutional amendments have brought a huge element of traditional russian, the language, the religion, god, everything into i was going to segue into that because i say that that also shows that he thinks that, you know, it has all been consolidated by now and thats a risk because the way he played from the 90s, almost the first 20odd years was trying to seal those divisions again. Now hes falling into the temptations that others have before, gets to my find of being a complacent and thats a kind of rock solid base. We see this happening all over the place where theres a kind of a sense of consolidating around, you know, one major set of identities. And he really runs a risk there of opening up again. The risk is there behind the scenes. Hes always tried to be very careful about playing with, you know, the chechen and muslim peoples of the Russian Federation he has a long history, just as long as the history of russian orthodoxy. He always emphasizes the indigenous relations of russia, not just orthodoxy, but islam, judaism, muslim, hes going to into dimensions of fighting with shahmannism and other fringe groups, but thats all very dangerous and he really does know better, but hes also fairly confident he can kind of pander to this larger base and i worry about that. I worry that that is again a fail why your failure to see whats going on. And people dont always get their full views. The viewpoint is popular and nationalist sentiment across globally here in the u. S. As well once they can amend it again and consolidate everything theyve been doing the last 20 years. In the final few minutes, fiona. I just have to be apologize for all the wonderful questioners, whose questions i wont reach and still without attributing to their names, like to do that, too. I cant not ask you that. When Vladimir Putin looks at the u. S. 2020 election. Whatever takes to the office in january of 2021, how to deal with this guy . Well, in terms of looking to see what 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, hell be looking to see if thats kind of the case because the more that the u. S. Is down in its own internal contributions and the weaker the president is domestically, but also perceived internationally, the less likely it is for the u. S. To try to restore a leadership role in so far as that might be a leadership of some, you know, kind of common cause against russia. I mean aring everything is always through that prism of what does this mean for us, rather than, you know, kind of the larger sense of, you know, are we in this together in the series of problems that weve got to contend with, so hes not going to be looking through some common good altruistic frame for sure hes going to look at more whats in it for us or what could be against us. And in this outcome. So i think he wants to basically have, a fairly diminished u. S. President no matter who it is and kind of a, u. S. Body politics that wound around its own axle and is not kind of projecting anything else against russia, specifically doesnt want more factions to feed the divisions not just at home in the u. S. , but among the u. S. And its allies to make sure it goes off. And now actually to what i would kind of advise whoever is going to be the president after january and you know, the new administration. Russia out of our domestic politics, difficult given the current configuration. We have to be on the same page. The only solution we have. The one thing we do have to be mindful of is not keep pushing china and russia together. The reason china rush relationship is more robust than perhaps many of us wouldve anticipated looking at a few years ago because we have been pushing the two of them together with our own policies. We have to think carefully about how we handle that as well. Theres a tremendous amount and there but all of us agree with every element of that. Quite a lot of public. Particular doubt that putin has extended his possibility to 2036 i think i many people hope youll get another edition of mr. Putin with insights about the recent but whatever you say we will be paying close attention. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you, everybody for tuning in. My apologies to the many, many Great Questions i didnt get to. See you next time. Thank you very much, matthew. Best wishes to everyone out there as well. Thank you. Cspan has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court and Public Policy events. You watch all of cspans Public Affairs programming on television, online or listen on our free radio lab and be part of the National Conversation through cspan state of washington journal programs or through our social media feeds. Cspan, created by americas cabletelevision companies as a Public Service and brought today today by your television provider. Later a discussion analyzing executive power and constitutional norm strewing the trump administration. Watch live at 11 a. M. On cspan2. You can watch online online at cspan. Org or listen live with the free cspan radio app. Tonight on the communicators Ohio Republican con Bob Goodlatte on the need for better maps Internet Access can be delivered to underserved rural areas. Its a good thing what happened was that they admitted at the sec we got to look at this, we do have a problem. We put money out there to help get these maps correct. We had the legislation which i was part of right from the getgo, and its important we get it done but again if the maps are not right when were going out there to get the dollars into the areas where you need to have them, it wont happen. In some cases you might be putting money in areas that already have services underserved areas and not getting the stars into the unserved areas. Republican congressman bob lotta tonight at eight eastern on the communicators on cspan2. Next Liberty University hosts its Freedom Summit conference focusing on restoring and preserving the rule