Influence in the middle east and u. S. Policy. S this was hosted by the center for National Interest. It is just over an hour and a half. We are going to discuss a new subject what does russia want . We dont have any russians here but there quite knowledgeable experts on russia. With the institutional and political perspective. In arabia caused even more confusion so what America Needs we would probably give one answer. With as the nations security advisor and with did a very different answer and then to change significantly and then another possibility president has discovered incriminating conduct regarding other american interests. This is a very important interesting topic. The director from Georgetown University also with his books from the state department as a scholar and a practitioner sojourn of both russian government in the position if you want that perspective you will get it spirit these are too tough questions. So i will spend bedtime talking about what does russia want . If i were tweeting i would say russia with like the United States to treated as if it were the soviet union as a great power with global reach that as the seat at the table with the International Decisions as the super power and the country that is respected by the rest of the world and one day the United States treats as unequal but the kremlin believes the United States has not treated them as legitimate. It is also true look at the past 25 years with the u. S. Russia relationship we have treated each other as equals more deadlines have converged in the fall of 2001 the russians were extremely helpful with the do Nuclear Arms Agreements with the number Tissue Fusion at work with the war in afghanistan and the russianamerican cooperation on the Syrian Chemical Weapons issue but it is also very important mocking and what russia expects the United States that defines the security perimeter with the borders of the former soviet state and with any institution if it is any closer to the borders it is a uh direct threat to the heartland so now before the elections those in the kremlin dented one donald trump to be elected at that conference in october last year the president praised donald trump has of populist to understand the resentment the masses have and of course, president putin himself looks at himself as the populist leader it was clear whether russia was hoping for for those sanctions that were imposed at the beginning of the crisis in the ukraine because that is something precious with like to see lifted. The during the Election Campaign is undoubtedly true the perception of russia of meddling and contributing did have an impact on the white house with the rhetoric we have heard about russia so i would say whatever the truth is that is counterproductive to improve relations with the United States. So the expectations in the kremlin were lowered there rubino grand bargain and then to mobilize the relationship to the point that we could discuss at what point are wriggling back words but that means establishing regular channels of communication with the dialogue on difficult issues some of the results of the secretary what does that show the interest Going Forward . So talk about what is going on in syria there is a hint of further discussion on syria with the name to word ending the civil war which is vague at the moment or to resume the Bilateral Dialogue apparently the most difficult issues if all this sounds familiar nobody should be surprised in the past 25 years to see remarkable continuity in a relationship with russia between democratic republican president s the issues dont change he usually takes a little longer for the Incoming Administration to understand the learning curve no doubt this time it was accelerated from the syrian chemical weapon attack. Can russia achieved any of the goals . Will it gain the recognition from the United States . I would say the fact the president in his inaugural address talks about promotion talks about future interest and that has been important looking at the next president ial election. But will the Trump Administration be emboldened over the post soviet space . That is not clear if you listen to the cabinet officials would indicate what the president has said over the past two weeks about russia it will lead one to question if they would be forthcoming. So what does america need from russia . Led to think this administration gabelli to have meaningful cooperation to bring this serious civil war to an end but that is highly aspirational because we have very different views. U. S. Would like to work toward a viable solution in the ukraine. The u. S. Would like Russian Support of course china is much more important part russia does have a role to play as it is of party in the dispute and more generally will like to have russia as a constructive player this has been consistent over the last 35 years with those issues that have been alluded to at the beginning we are still very much in the beginning of the definition of what the u. S. National interest are in bieber a beginning to understand that more than it is possible to work with russia on these issues we need a better sense Going Forward. The final question to what extent do we overlap or conflict . We can say in theory we both want to fight terrorism but that is difficult we both save you like an end to what is happening but that is elusive. I say our understanding of the solutions to these problems we just have very different world views we have to be realistic about the interest that we do have with that limited range to do the best we can to improve communication and Work Together. Informative and and very wise but i will ask u. S. Simple question. The options are remitted at best with all of those disagreements to have mentioned greg. I maybe am not as worried but i know the rhetoric of the russian side has spent quite surprising recently. I do worry about the danger of the unexpected mishap leading to an escalation that it is hard to pull back but i guess i am hoping restraint will prevail on poolsides. Russia has a number of very experienced diplomats and leaders i hope that will prevail. Up next steven is the director from the Nonproliferation Initiative and was ambassador and is a skilled negotiator and knows a lot about the region very well and he is a very important perspective. Is the pleasure to be here today i start with the observation that compared to for five years ago we see a russia that is much more active most obvious is of ukraine with the seizure of crimea. But also just a broader interest in terms of tone midwestern military at a pace for or five times what it was five for six years ago with those clout will Close Encounters with nato and the russian aircraft and the ships this is against the backdrop of a modernization effort so to the point where the Russian Ambassador in copenhagen feels they are targeting denmark with Nuclear Weapons and then has concluded that it be adaptation to russian interest so they are looking for three specific things. Us base without the people to states and to begin between United States and europe and will talk about each briefly but first of all, with the sphere of influence and i do not believe putin was to recreate the soviet union in part because he understands that would have a negative economic set of consequences for russia because they would subsidize that. What they do want is the stipulation that they differ to moscow on key issues in this includes the countries such as ukraine or georgia with the European Union they also oppose the opening to russian business also uses those as the way to increase the leverage critical pressure as russia has maintained a good record. But the number of embargoes like georgia ukraine or belarus is an instrument of russian policy with the use of the complex like croatia were crimea those that had Russian Forces to occupy a territory for when the soviet union collapsed in 1991. Also looking in the post soviet states the kremlin tries to avert the revolution and then again in 2005 the way he talks about these he does not see it as a manifestation of discontent but these are organized by western security forces. I think that is the wrong misinterpretation. The second is with nato and the European Union to say would be a political option russia deals with the European Countries on a bilateral basis so to understand that point of view when you talk about the e. U. Member there is a difference there of economic power. With the europeans enlargement these are driven by the United States with the goal to bring military force to the russian borders but dont think we can change that perception. In terms of the rules there is evidence cyberwarfare is used it is not an accident the politician that was to moscow from the election you also see the use of military to intimidate the west and what i worry about it is raising the risk of miscalculation on the part of russia to raise the concern if it does not change course european cable every few months to say it could be resolved if the russians could actually bring something to help solve the problem but this is where they dont like the European Union because they dont have a seat at those tables if you sit down with the american president to decide but i think the russians are not having success with this strategy they remain committed in the post cold war era those other reflective of the western interests and values and there wont be a lot of excitement about redefining that around the sphere of influence you had a period of almost 20 years where nato was thinking about other things with Counter Insurgency with those russian tactics now have nato refocused on article five and then into the Baltic States the European Union has a lot of problems including those in moscow to be remarkably unified and those that they would like to incorporate. So we know what russia wants mrs. Of managing differences this is the big difference over ukraine. It appears the russians at this point pass up the opportunities to resolve that. It is hard to see how they come to terms of that perhaps nato and russia could discuss but alight with they have done the last several years there taking steps and the last question is what they mean but the russian violation it is hard to see how we get more cooperative from the russians but the secretarys approach in moscow is the only way it will work before we get to a point where we can get back to more normal relations with russia. If i understood you correctly talking about what could be accomplished but correct me if i am wrong but the conflict then ukraine would escalate. Your not worried about things like that if greg. With the question of ukraine you will nazi a major escalation they understand theyre at a point as the moon to the west so they may have more partisan activity so this allows them to focus on some very real problems but dont see that escalating. Is more risky than it was for five years ago. Uc these pictures of russian aircraft and to put confidence of the russian pilot from the old u. S. Navy commander it could be a problem very quickly. Up next we have paul from the center of National Interest i know him well because of the creation of the center day he was the assistant director and with the state department as a Senior Research with humanrights issues. So one of those helped to organize to be responsible recently traveling to moscow to interview the foreign minister there were as a level of respect or familiarity and comfort of from the chemical attack and syria in the hope he will explain to us in a particular i am mystified of the Trump Administration the reason this i am not aware of a single american who would do Something Like that battle so interestingly tuesday its bid is undignified. So white with they expect that would be done unilaterally by the United States without anything done on the russian side . I will start briefly with that and i will move to my remarks which focused at the International Level with the division of labor to focus on different aspects of this challenge as far as the sanctions are concerned my sense there is the change of president and the United States many people of russian for policy suddenly think to themselves now the americans will finally recognize them mistakes they have been making over the last 10 years and now they will correct their errors. I remember vividly in the transition with the yen coming Obama Administration was expected to make changes on the solvents with the ukraine and georgia joining some of us rasping those in moscow if the United States is prepared to make certain changes but would russia be prepared to do corrects slowed the response at the time from a senior russian diplomat is your correcting your mistakes portion redo anything for you when that will benefit the United States . So we hope that they would be lifted and that it would arius and we would recognize what we were doing wrong which of course, is that variants zero most people think of the situation. Looking at the main focus of what does russia one i will talk about two things with they dont want is out of this affects the United States and then i will make a broader point. The first thing is the Stable International system to allow russia to focus primarily on its own internal challenges and problems. Los to aspects to the International System from the russian perspective duplicates that but one element of the International System is rule based with deferrals and one key component for the rules the restrain the misstates the adn that the use of force is a major source of instability which of course, is another area that most americans have sharply different views that second element what russia would like to see internationally is strong governments better capable of controlling their own territory to ensure that terrorism with other forms of instability and to use that formulation what happens in serious days since syria. Then the river of she choose to think about it. Minnesota to manage uh territory and would never they consider necessary under the circumstances. Now both of these elements with a Stable International system so with those preferences we obviously preferred and International System with a broad flexibility probie her for insurgent want governments that our responsive to the population and this comes into conflict that russia is much more comfortable with i dont think they are opposed to democracy trying to promote authoritarian is some. That is a way to look at the issue but the real russian concern is the transition from authoritarianism to democracy in the transition and because of the of los circumstances is very comfortable working at the democratic governments. So i dont really think it is the issue. So talking about the e. U. And nato at the risk of being glib those that would prefer to work with the ec the you with the wealth and power with the working with individual members that in a broad sense having a similar objective of working individual with government with very different means there are a lot of other governments around the world that did not have that capacity to avoid with the weaker players. With my next comment i will try. To have a role in the International System that satisfies that image i would argue a couple of components is a difference to the vital interest but other major powers because that is where much of the conflict comes into the equation. [inaudible] it on. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] what russia wants from the International System. The final thing i would say is, about the United States and how we think about what russia wants for the International System and how these two things over lap or dont, certainly the United States also wants a Stable International system and we want one that continues basically to reflect our values and preferences and interests. I think one thing we need to ask ourselves about the International System is, is russia on its own the greatest threat that the International System faces today . I would argue, probably not. There is another fairly significant threat to the system coming from china. Then there is a third danger which is actually the threat to the system of cooperation between russia and china to undermined the system as a whole, which i argue is a much greater threat of actions of either of them separately along those lines. So thinking about that challenges america and my priority would be to think about a foreignpolicy that avoids an alignment between russia and china to undermine structure of the International System. Then there is a question that follows that which is to the extent that we want to avoid that, is it more costly for the United States to try to find a way to work with russia, or is it more costly for the United States to try to work with china . Which of those two things will be ultimately better for the United States and trying to preserve the system that we now enjoy. Thank you very much, Michael Kaufman is a center use with the Woodrow Wilson International Center in despite his young age he is already very well established and respected as the Russian Military. And whether we like it or not when we are with the relationship today the military component is becoming increasingly important. We thought it was important for michaels perspective. We really appreciate the introduction for all of us in the fantastic panel. Im probably going to talk a bit less for what russia wants since we covered that brilliantly. I will probably focus on what russia gets what it wants and water take we should be. For russia the military is a critical instrument of National Power. Without much of what its been going on the last couple of years and the crisis would not be possible, think economics in general have made a Poor Foundation for the International System wallets military has made up for in so i will talk you through a little bit about how russia got to where it is today without getting into the weeds and or takeaways. So, russia spent pretty little if anything if it was a grantor of sovereignty, principal to turn against the United States and ultimately a key component of the position and the staff of itself meaning you could say with armscontrol arrangements. But its military was very dysfunctional non predictable instrument of National Power. Remember ten or 15 years ago many great articles about Russians National Security Council all wrong, theyre totally outdated, focus on fighting nato not really useful for dealing with local conflicts and i recall things back then were probably have to be careful of what we wish for. Errors if russia gained military of National Power it probably started using it for fascist interest abroad. I wonder what those would like like. Fastforward. Russia launched military reforms in 2011. They completely dismantled the unworkable soviet army, the years investment russia restores on painting very broad strokes. The ability to use force. So within a narrow window of time if you look at it from 2008 until today, its still a process and progress meaning the Russian Military Modernization Program reforms are not done but they show tremendous results, they basically emerged as a preeminent military power in the soviet space. Likely to be first in conflict and today you can argue the Russian Military can defeat any other former soviet republic. What is not allowed to do . Allow them to be from their perspective theres always someone the region which is your either the agenda setter the agenda taker. Russia has help narrow the technological gap of the United States in terms of use of conventional military power. By investing in modernizing its force, investing a lot of capabilities for noncontact warfare to get a reasonable sufficiency of the kind of things the United States can do. Russia can credibly fact terms by the region and to a lesser extent punish and retaliate. So is Strong Enough to belong to nato. In terms of military power, for long time russia was too low to be seen, meaning from the United States perspective but they could militarily do was almost negligible. Today the recognition is there. So hows the military use . The Russian Military as a tool allows moscow to impose its will on its neighbors or have a decent chance, prevail with local conflict and have a very powerful instrument of coercion. But the military forces about diplomacy. Most of their first is not meant to be used. Its meant to be threatened with. Moscows approach is to try to bid as cheaply as possible focusing on direct approaches very limited use of force because the International System in general is expensive and costly and to. So is russias military out prelude . So far, not say no. Thats because of the creek clear weakness and choice of russians have made in terms of how it is pursuing and crafting. That has substantial and critical manpower limitations, ultimately the land force is small. Probably the smallest land force russia has ever had. Without a fork this for noncontact warfare. That means long ring precision strike, weapons, air defense, things that are expensive, costly but ultimately are about actions or retaliating. What that tells you at the end of the days that russia still really lacks the capacity to occupy large amounts of train of space of anybody. Thats why in terms of how much territory it sees of the neighbors about gaining leverage. So what can i take to achieve political objectives and achieve my will. But not a position ukraine is a largest country in europe and frankly nobody has fully enforce occupy ukraine. So realistically when you look at it most of the maximum pursuit that they can make not only in the military opposition to the seem to be investing in that. The second part is a telus the focus it is broad and primary contention is ukraine, belarus essentially in reality the military is in terrible shape to do military operations of project power far from its borders despite what we have seen in syria. What has allowed russia to do, the ability to veto nato expansion. How do they view that to ukraine . By using force and taking terrain and essentially block its perspective nato expansion in its own preference. What does that mean . Well, from russias perspective there have the credibility to compel any of their neighbors. They can also challenge the alliance in western europe. Nato by all means is the preeminence defensive alliance. That is very true, but keep in mind its true on paper. Excel spreadsheets dont fight. When you look at the realities in europe, how russias military is on paper in terms of real ability to use a project military power brought versus how fast nato can do that, but nato has available. Keep in mind the 60 of is in the asia pacific, not even aimed at that part of the world. The matchups are paper different. , russias been successful in the only couple years and making National Security hit the, i believe button, and the fact that its no longer week. They have gone from a dying, weak regional power, they dont make anything anymore to still make Nuclear Weapons. Now its basically considered to be not only a threat to the United States but the threat assessment of russia has changed dramatically in the u. S. National security establishments. Because Russian Military power has substantially expanded into an half years. Most of the reforms were down by 2012 and a lot of modernization had hidden by 2014. The cognizance and realization of catching up. Next, Russian Military has become source of pride at home. You can source the military is and that has come for National Pride and meaning it becomes a very important tool because we always focus on Foreign Policy. We dont focus on the military in domestic politics and they fit now as a way to project status abroad and also demonstrate at home that they are a systemic power. It allows us to to achieve victories and form policy. Bring them home despite economic hardships. Us Russian Military that is created a sense that rushes back on the international stage. Russia has used it to try to get after the problem of how to get the respect and status of the soviet union had without having the economy of the soviet union and be in the second superpower. It offers a perspective of fear but it creates a russia today an important option for u. S. Interests. This is where the United States mask why should we engage in russia, what can russia bring to the table . The first answer would be i can bring nothing to the table. That be the good news for you. The big question is, how do you know i will not spoil what you are trying to do and use it as a point of leverage. Question one is eyes how can we Work Together on a cooperative agenda. In a period of jupiter geopolitical, can they come here and when the car. Ill wrap up by highlighting a few points of how we see this used definitively as an instrument of form policy. In september 2014 at syria we saw how the Rapid Deployment force a conversation with the United States setting down across the table with a place where its unequal. It broke russia out of his isolation. Another thing they litter to does the military activity in europe is very calculated to introduce risks. Create security situation which means european actors one, was the amount of uncalculated risk involved . The result is that makes them want to see the jewel tracker engagement. Russia wanted to push the administration, whoever won the election and to push the next administration to seek disability nation. Look at where we are and say this is a degradation relationship. And pure Nuclear Weapon space cannot continue on. We need to stabilize relations. As can turn to the middle east but i suspect you want is some q a. We have three activeduty threestar generals are all experts a people who know what is happening in syria in terms of american planning. They gave a definitive response that the Russian Military presence in syria was a game changer. And there is nothing we could do militarily in syria but ignoring russia. Unless we were prepared to go in with russia. It was already close to the election. Be prepared to use military force all three general said no. It was not a question of who is in the oval office, it is a question of what is the balance of forces. Now donald trump is in the oval office, we have seen what weve seen during last week in syria and elsewhere. If you had this question, the things that we have military options in syria, do we have an option of doing whatever we think is useful, ignoring russia and without risking military conflict. There is military options but a lot of times there are bad ones. I think through question is, are they smart intelligent options that achieve anything the United States would consider its interests. In terms of military options, what you just saw the Cruise Missile strike at the air base, youre looking at it as the safest bus. There are higherend options than not that the United States could have done and still got away with. In terms of their actual meaning and impact the consequences wouldve been different. If you want to use force to establish deterrence and change the risk calculus of assad, didnt matter if you use 59, 70 or hundred Cruise Missiles. In terms of could the United States pursue a Water Campaign without regard for the Russian Forces on the ground, but operating bases advising syrian troops have units all over the place and special forces everywhere, no. That would end up in a mess pretty quickly. The entire point of that force was not meant to protect syrians its a small presence on focused on protecting the russian footprint. Its understandable that part of its effect is to introduce very dangerous dynamics to shape u. S. Missile force options. Meaning the option we and up choosing is a balance of the fact that were going for in the military presence we know shape the decisionmaking and that makes sense. My answer is, our military options . There are probably higher than what we did. That have no greater meeting in terms of what were trying to achieve. Is there real danger or risk given russian presence on the ground . Yes. Its intended as such. It has a shaping effect on our policies. If you know the russian decisionmaking process the history of Russian Foreign policy, they have a very different to in washington who can give a strong message to putin. They think we can count i think that would be very difficult. If you assume that maybe that you have two president s who might be interested in something transactional, i guess from the Russian Point of view the question would be whats in it for russia . Russia to change course in syria thered obviously have to be, first of all guaranteed that the next leader syria would still be someone who would welcome a russian presence there. A lot of this has to do with russia having military airbases there and increase the influence in the middle east since its began the syrian operation. Im sure they want to tie to the sanctioned issues for things not directly related to syria. If you like the rewards it would have to be quite high. That would have to be a larger menu the thing we are willing to offer russia in the past. I think the Biggest Challenges of physics to the problem. A clear asymmetry of interest in syria for both parties. Independent of the leadership the reality is that the United States has very few cards and inherited fairly little. Its not credible that either russia or the unit states will go to war for each other over anything in syria. Not even nuclear war, any conventional exchange. There is definitely a risk calculus and clear limits of how much you can threaten what you can course and compel. If we know that the reasonable leaders that we would not go to war with syria. We would have a stronger military. Why cant we push russia for their knowing putin would not go to war . Simple, because we know for fact or at least we can logically deduce that they would go to war over dead russian soldiers. That is why the footprint is out there. The answer is not shares there to the bed syria, i dont think thats a credible fear. I think the fears russia will position itself such that we cannot effectively go to war syria without risking conflict with Russian Forces. Thats where russians have credibility. Maybe its debatable russia will go to nuclear war with that. Thats something you never want to test. One thing i really dislike the argument written that think we should do it because i think it putin is bluffing. Im not sure he knows hes bluffing. Thank you very much. Let me ask everyone to limit himself or herself to one questionnaire, there a lot of people competent people in the room and introduce yourself properly. I that i mean most of us in the room know each other but we have see spend audience. When you introduce your say i am a retired diplomat, sam a former relations of this is not selfpromotion. This is helping see spend audience to understand was speaking here. Would you like to start . Thank you. I am john, a former director of national intelligence. My question actually has to do with another area. I heard this morning ive heard before that that maybe have a meeting so the taliban even to the point of offering them assistance. I would just like to ask if its true or if it is, and if so what are the implications of that information. I have no idea if street, but it has been repeated by more than one u. S. Commander and others have alluded to that. So the question really is, what is the meaning of those. One, as we discussed the does russia have an option to play in an area where u. S. Forces are engaged in u. S. Foreign policy will say it could be sabotaged, could russia establish a role for itself, it looks like its doing some of that in afghanistan. Likely very cheaply. To come from the russian perspective there quite concert of a future trajectory and not sure whether it will hold out with the level of international remains. I think for them to do is establish links and ties of the taliban for what happens to the taliban doesnt when they take a large percentage of us afghanistan. Thats a negative, this basically shows you that russia hedging is best at the very least which is not a good sign for us. Is watching russian tv program on saturday. They were interviewing a leading russia form policy expert with close ties to the russian leadership. She was asked what should russia do in response to the policy. First we cannot retreat. If we retreat there would be more and more and we cannot do it. Second, we should not she said we do not have at the moment in particular military to compete with the United States globally. Then she said the globe is a huge place and can they do something and do it in a meaningful way without making a public announcement but in such a way that the American Leadership would know and understand who has done it. I think this ambassador the television may be one of those instances with russia to try to explore. Im a former secretary of state. On a test more about the sanctions in russia. First was in response to ukrainian crimea remain in effect today, it has become interesting to me as an observer how the political dynamic has changed. A year to go when they were doing their semiannual exercise of the sanctions every time there up for renewal there were stories about how the italians were going softer the french were going soft for the germans wanted to back down. The secretary of state would go over there and a Diplomatic Campaign to give the europeans greater backbone. Since Trump Took Office the dynamics of reverse. Tried to give you a backbone of sanctions. To me thats interesting to watch some bluffing going on with this issue in the past. The comment was made the state of russian is the subject for negotiation. But if we wont recognize our mistake or surrender issue. Im wondering that position makes sense if the russians generally think the u. S. Is about to retreat on sanctions. Russians may have believed that on january 20, its hard to imagine that they continue to believe it today. If you not playing close attention to u. S. Politics if they do. I think the legislation would pass by overwhelmingly majority. President trumps flexibility to give away the sanctions the very limited amount exists at this point. My question is, are the russians really troubled about the continuation of sanctions . Do they really want to get rid of the sanctions, and if it remains a problem for them what do you think the bottom line is . Are they prepared to come to some agreement on ukraine . Or to the contrary have they decided the benefits outweigh the damage to the economy . I think angela has a, too. The first thing i would says, i dont think the impact of the sanctions in the short term is so onerous that it compels the russian government to accrue to try to get out from under the sanctions. The sanctions fall into two categories. There sanctions on individuals that prevent them from traveling to the u. S. Are having assets here. There sanctions on relatively small number of companies that make it difficult to do this. Key component of the sanctions as the Obama Administration imposed them was uncertainty, and uncertainty in two ways. Uncertainty about whether there might be further new sanctions if russian conduct continued, and also uncertainty how the existing sanctions would be applied, interprets, what the margins were. So, i think under the new administration, its less clear that there might be new sanctions, so that risk has somewhat diminished. Its less clear the administration will take very hard line in enforcing sanctions or try to create uncertainty about how broad the sanctions actually are or try to discourage american executives from traveling to events leak the st. Petersburg International Economic forum like the Obama Administration was trying to do. Thats another element. On the negotiations about the sanctions, i think Vladimir Putin is pretty unlikely to agree to do that, and the fundamental problem the fundamental problem is the view that russia is a great power that some were talking about. The problem is once the russian government and putin agree to trade something in order to get the sanctions lifted, youre telling the russian people that the sanctions worked. The sanctions forced russia to knuckle under and make a concession, and i think thats precisely the kind of thing that putin would be extremely reluctant to do. Particularly after everything that he has invested in creating this image for himself and for russia. Let me just add a couple of things to that. I think the sanctions the russians would like to see lifted, access to capital markets, the sanctions and the hightech, energy sanctions. You already have a discussion going in europe and to some extent on the side of the atlantic, including canada in this, the idea that maybe you could have a sort of partial establishbystep, not all or nothing, the sanctioned are lifted when mink is fulfilled. This suggestion has been going on for quite a now months a few months and well see. Might we one way to go. Right now i dont know. That get into the whole question about whether the United States should joined the minsk format, whether it will continue the bilateral sunkses. The russians imposed their over sanctions and have helped the russian economy. They stimulated agricultural production, you can get cheese now. And they dont want to list those because they have been good for russian. What you might see after the elections in france and germany, greater flexibility in terms of negotiating. Two points. One is i agree, the sanctions on russia have not succeeded in getting russia to reverse course. There is the question of absent the sanctions what russia might have done, and we dont that. The sanctions could have deterred rescue from further aegregious actions in ukraine. Thats make a real cease fire happen, which the russians could make happen if they wanted. Lets withdraw heavy arms and the Russian Forces on the russian side of the border make clear to ukrainians you cant take advantage of this and then tell the ose monitors good where you want to verify this. Then russia would transfer the entire responsibility to the ukraines and they would have to pass a constitutional amendment on decentralization and pass an election law that would be really hard because Public Attitude since minsk was signed have hardened. The russians have chosen not do that which suggests to me sanctions are not enough to get them to overcome the idea of using civilian combat to put pressure on. I always was skeptical of this sanctions not because i think that sanctions are not legitimate instrument of Foreign Policy, but this sanction was sufficient to irritate but not sufficient to change russian behavior, and if you would look the russian Economic Situation today, it is beginning to improve. Its still a slow growth but it is degreing and getting adjusted to sanction. Im not suggesting for a second we should leave the sanctions. Would make the opposite point. If we will find russian behavior unacceptable, we do have very powerful economic instruments. One is obviously move against russian export of oil and gas, which would have a terrible impact on russia. Second, sanctions against the russian financial system, specifically against the Russian Central Bank. The way the Russian Central Bank operates, you dont need to be creative to find reasons to move against the. And then disconnecting russia from the system. Again, im not suggesting that we should do it. And im not suggesting as bob sanders have indicated, we will do it publicly in a way that would push putin into the corner, but a having a conversation with the russian government, i think that we should be able to deliver private messages and to say, look, this is not a direction we want to take, but dont look at hesitation when it becomes inevitable because this is the mood in congress, we have to deal with. And that mood in congress provides administration in my view, with a very serious leverage. Looking and you are ambassador formerly of the state department. You did have the russian desk. Thats true and i knew mr. Putin in st. Petersberg. Looking at the post soviet space, arent we in washington as analysts possibly guilty of a huge misinterpretation of what is going on since that great empire started to collapse . As it collapsed, different agendas came up. The the georgianss. And now the mother of all frozen or simmering conflicts, namely ukraine. Arent we looking really the wars wars of the soviet succession . Arent these domestic disputes basically, with no threat intended to the west . And my real question is this for steve pifer. I have to remind you, steve, you have repeatedly forgotten that the first violation of border since world war ii was not ukraine but, rather, turkey in 1974. But thats just a beef of mine. How do you interpret the fact that today there is a joint control commission where they flag officer from ukraine and a flag officer from russia, working to try to mitigate the consequences of that conflict isnt that a rather strange way for two states that are theoretically one is accused of invade thing the other, theyre working together just as they do on one of these joint controlled commissions . Steve. Thats a good question but let me respond to the disagreement on the ukraine case. First i dont think there can be any dispute that what we saginaw crimea was a Russian Military takeover, using Russian Military forces. When i served in ukraine i personally cannot believe that had it not been for the involvement of the russians beginning in april of 2014 you would have soon a conflict hoff this duration, intensity, which has killed 10,000 people among the ukraines by themselves. Think you have to look the russian instigation, the russian supply of heavy weapons and the funding for separatists and theres a joint commission where theres a russian officer and a ukraine officer. On average anywhere from two to seven ukraine soldiers a week debuts that commission has failed to bring about peace. Also go back and take a look at probably what i would call the last best poll in Eastern Ukraine in 2014 and it was interesting because it showed that in Eastern Ukraine, the ukrainian population, ethnic ukrainens were the majority. They wanted good relations to russia and wanted to be able to speak and use the russian lange. They were uneasy what happened with the revolution in kiev, but it still showed that well over 70 of the population wanted to remain part of ukraine. Im sorry. I dont think this war would have happened and gone on for three years had the russians stayed out of it. Can i i will be very brief. Let me say a couple of things. Somewhere area is would agree with john and others i would agree more with steve. I think we have to remember why the borders between these countries exists in the places they are in the first place, and that goes back to decisions by the soviet leadership at the time of the Russian Revolution and the formation of the ussr between 1917 and the early 1920s, and there was this person who was a georgian and the minister of nationalities the peoples comissa by the name of Joseph Stalin who knew exactly what he was doing when he played a role in drawing the borders in the locations they weredrop and they were drawn precisely to make it difficult for the soviet union to come apart, and i dont think we should forget that legacy. The same time thats a legacy that makes it kind of more like lie rather than less likely there would be trouble when the soviet union came apart, and theres also an element of russias agency, russias conduct, in this environment and russias conduct i would have to agree with steve has meat it in some cases much bloodier and more violent than it had to be. Thank you. With quite a few people raising their hand, with 15 minutes so i will ask all of you to have brief questions or comments, and then brief answers. Im the former governor of virginia and former chairman of the National Commission of terrorism, weapons of mav destruction. I apologize for being late. Rain extort on interstate 95 traffic kept me from hearing angela and steven, although i listened closely to paul and michael ask trying to get to the answer of what the russians wantment maybe that was explained by the first two speakers carefully. Paul, i read very closely your lavrov interview, very closely, and tried to understand what do the russians web want, and i cae away with an interview that expressed anger, sense of inferiority, fear, and their actions would be conducted as a result of that. What were seeing right now is an invasion of a country whose borders they guaranteed and we guaranteed, by the way next ukraine and the affleckation of annexation of the crimea and changing of borders by force which causes the United States and allies to reaction. So i guess the open question i would ask, is this why need to do this . During the time that you the nato was predominant in europe, they were not assaulted. Why do they feel is it in the National Character of the russians they feel they need to do this . Why not simply just engage in the concorde of nations economically and build up the quality of life of the people of russia . Instead of lashing out and creating this kind of danger and resentment. Maybe ill just repeat in a somewhat different way what i said in the beginning of my remarks. I guess you have to go back to russian history and at least if you believe what top russian officials and other russians say. So, when russia looks out the world today, it doesnt define its security perimeter in terms of security of the borders of the russian federation. It looks out to whole post soviet space, countries that were once part thereof soviet union, the defense perimeter, the security perimeter is those borders, so that if a ukraine decides that it wants to move west, wants to join nato and the European Union obviously not on offer thats seen as a direct threat to russian heartland. We can say from our point of view we dont understand it but nato has declared since the time since the soviet union its not directed against russia, and indeed it has many other things its been doing. It mission is completely changed. But thats not how it is seen, and i think essentially when president putin said, 12 years ago the collapse of the soviet union was the greatest geo political catastrophe in the 20th century, and he believes that and the current russia is much stronger to ensure illit witness have a veto power over the choice made by the immediate neighbors. So thats an essential part over the russian world view. The moyer you go back and look at what happened, at least in the latter part of the yeltsin era is what all there. Marvin kalb, a Senior Adviser the pulitzer center. Id like to hear more about what the panelists feel is the role of the russian intrusion into the elections last year, and the effect that had upon the development of u. S. Russian relations now. In other words, is it possible that until that issue was resolved, both major powers have no way of knowing that the basis for significant move forward . Do we have to wait for the resolution of that crisis . Paul, quickly. Yes. I dont think of both sides necessarily have to wait. Certainly its quite difficult in the current environment, pretty significant constraints on the Trump Administration in what it can do, any certainly any effort to make changes in the sanctions without russia fulfilling the minsk agreement as steve mentioned, could produce a backlash in congress. There are other cop constraints. Far greater scrutiny of the u. S. Russian relationship than at any time in the post soviet u. S. Russia relation shape. Theres also a question of are there things that the administration can do to change the narrative that would allow the administration to greater flexibility in dealing with russian than has now. And like the Cruise Missile attack that mike kofman talked about it change third dynamic of the conversation between the Trump Administration takes an action like that. Theres great public and congressional support for that here in the United States. The russian leadership is visibly angry about it, and opposed to it. So, i wouldnt rule out further progress in the relationship without the election issue being resolved, because i think at a certain point there will be the election interference was a major issue at a time when there was no policy toward russia and everybody was trying to guess what the administration residents policy toward russia was them more that there is a russia policy and that there are intervening events, like the Cruise Missile strike, i think the more that the issue i dont want to say will move to the side because i dont think it will at all move to the side. Going be very continued focus on it. It will be less of an obstacle but there will be more of a context to slot it into than there was before. This is a very instance where i dont agreeing with my colleague, paul sanders. I believe that marvin is absolutely right, at least the way i understood you. Unless we have some kind of certainty that the election was not stolen by russia and that the key people in the Trump Administration and the Trump Campaign were not in collusion with russian government, its going to be very difficult for the administration to conduct any sensible Foreign Policy because i understand that mr. Trump is an experienced businessman, he went through a lot of things in his life. He has had his share of controversy but if you have to conduct democracy, put in the department how every step you are making may be perceived as treason and what the options are. So, i think the faster and more reliably we can move on this russian interference issue the bert off everybody will be. Im a perennial optimist. Thank you. Professor at george washington, the the Elliott School of International Affairs and previously served on the nsc. My question for the panel is about your assessment of the decisionmaking process in the kremlin and how much you think putins policy in ukraine and syria particularly but more generally if youd like is reactive versus how much is it part of a wellthoughtout strategy. On ukraine, steve, would be interested in your thoughts. My view is that his main goal there is to just keep things up stable, which is pretty easy for him to do. Im wondering what you all think about his capacity to control his allies in syria and ukraine. I think its more of a problem in syria, controlling assad, than probably in ukraine, but so generally, how reactive versus well thoughtout is putins policy if you dont mind one question well answer because we literally have six minutes left and they have five people on my list, which is already on the list. Well, ill just start off very briefly. I dont think theres a well thoughtout longterm strategy but what the kremlin has been very good at its taking advantage of opportunitied that are presented to them. Think in the ukraine case, that wasnt reactive. Obviously the takeover of crimea was not something that was planned in two days so the timing of it, obviously, had to do with any fact that the president fled and there was a vacuum there that was a feeling that president assad was luting the war and the United States wouldnt do much if there wasnt russian intervention. I just i think certainly there was a plan in the file cabinet how to take crimea but a the plan wasnt until sometime in late february 2014 that putin said, take that plan out and execute it. Second point is, the goal clearly is to keep ukraine destabilized and thats an easy objective. Much easier to be a spoiler than to do something constructive. The third point is im not sure theres a grand strategy here. That was thought out. If you look at actually what russian policy has produced in ukraine, for the first time in hundreds of years theyre sense of ukraineian National Identity which extent beyond western central ukraine into Eastern Ukraine, and second, its imbued at a very strong antirussian sentiment that will be there for a long time to come that a lot of hot hostility in ukraine towards russia. In terms of being reactive versus strategy, one, clearly actions in ukraine were largely reactive and versus actually not very wellplaced to intervene in ukraine in 2014. Forced werent there in terms of Operational Plan for crimea, Operational Planning but the forces that used in the planning didnt exist until 2012 so we know must have been afresh plan. Russian is very cliff but cleverly tries to get out of situations that smart powers dont end up in the first place, and on grand strategy, dont think its there for anybody. Grab strategy is for grand strategyis to talk about. Do know places that write about grand strategy. On ukraine, just the reality of it. Russian goals in ukraine, destabilizing, ukraine,us, but the russian perspective is to clear things that dont end up with. They dont want to own 40 over now theyre forced to threaten to annex it as part of a game to basically play back and forth with the europeans. Its problematic for them. Two ukrainians, people talk about ukraine like its a blank space on the chessboard and thing wets did and russians did. The im not sure if russia stopped fire, the ukrainians would stop fire because they would have to implement the deal. Theyre not done. And on syria, the last answer, can russia control the allies . No. The role of power broker and you see american officials trying to cut deals with rich for thing with russia for thinged doesnt have for sale. I was thinking bat statement by Joseph Stalin. Joe steph stall lynn allegedly was Joseph Stalin allegedly was porch bid man in the communist subcommittee in charge of the Rightist Union and they were very disagreeable people. They could not be trusted. There were selfabsorbed and ultimately not loyal to the party. Stalin listened to him and said, comrade, youre dismissed, because this is the only rightist i got and you are expendable. If we when knew how oh expel russia from the International System, if we could remove russia from ranks of superpowers, if we knew how to deprive russia of a veto power in the Security Council, i think a lot of thing would be much simpler. If the question does russia deserve to be a Great Nuclear power . And does it deserve to be on u. N. Security council . I think most of us would say no. The problem with russia, thats the way it is and this is not a happy topic. I think we have to be strong, determined, but also pragmatic in our decisions and very much hope that our president , who is also a former business executive, that you will judge american policy not by intentions but by results. As long as that would be his criteria, i think we may be up to something. Thank you very much. [applause] announcer building a more effective house care system in the United States. Dr. Ezekiel emmanuelle will care at a recent Health Conference at pepperdine university. I manuel al one think mind to it,ut our right, we can go from 37th in the country to number one. Right . And the reason it is good to be in california is because you guys proved it. A lot of you grew up when i grew line was wind was gallo. Now we just knock everybody out with our wine. Bestornia, oregon, the wines. Are doing the same thing with all of oil, mainly in california, right . I really do like food. We do it with chocolates, right . We are doing it. When we put our mind to it, we are the best. We can knock it out of the park. Right,e to bottle it etc. But we are now superfocused on health care in this country and we are going to do it. Announcer you can see the rest of that event tonight at 8 00 eastern here on cspan. Check out our cspan classroom website at cspan. Org\classroom. Givesproved layout teachers easy access to ready to go classes. Highlighting important actions in washington, d. C. And social studies lesson plans as well as on this day in history resources. And filtern search by date, person, keyword, topic, and grade level. Our bell ringers featured teacher favorites. Vocabulary questions that make federal government and policy more accessible to students. Thanks i love the bell ringers. I use them in conjunction with activities we are doing that day as a wrapup. Fabulous. Website is my students use it regularly and they are working on clipping videos and making questions that they can design and turn into their own bell ringers. Probably my favorite is the elimination days. It is fully developed and ready to go classroom discussion on a variety of discussions that are current and relevant today. Im announcer join your fellow teachers across the nation as a member. It is free and easy to register. If you register now you can request a free american president s timeline poster. A graphic display of all 45 president s. Find out more about