[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> after daily white house press briefing, the chairman of the counsel of economic advisers discussed the september jobs report, and how the government shutdown affected the u.s. economy. >> thank you, jay. this morning we found out the economy added 148,000 jobs in the month of september. the unemployment rate ticked down to 7.2%, and those are both part of the steady three-year trend of job creation and reduction in the unemployment rate. there's no question, though, that that pace of job creation is below what we can be fully satisfied with, and that the conversation we'd like to be having is a conversation about how to add to jobs. instead what we did in october was self-inflicted wound that will subtract from jobs when we

eventually learn the jobs number for october. normally, economists love jobs day, the most recent, fresh look at the jobs in the economy, but this was delayeded by several weeks, and as a result covers data from september, which was before the significant changes that happened in october. one thing we've been trying to get a handle on is what the economic consequences of that economic shutdown and debt limit bringsmanship have been. the first slide gives you a number of private sector estimates of the consequence, and they all show that gdp growth was reduced we two-tenths to six-tenths. the estimates are useful and informative, but it's important to understand they are based on predictions. basically, they say if government services ceased for this amount of time or this amount of money, we have some type of multiplier model. here's the consequence for gdp. they are not based on actual

data or necessarily capture the full set of effects on confidence, on uncertainty, on oil drillers not getting permits, small businesses not getting loans, homeowners not getting mortgages. what we tried toot at the council of economic advisers was look at data on the economy, and the next slide shows data we looked at, all indicators available on a daily or weekly basis. the most recent set is available through october 12th, covering three quarters of the shutdown or most of the first half of october, and these eight indicators tell a very consistent story. sales growth, as shown in the first two indicators slowed in the first half of the month. one survey said 40% of consumers cut back on spending because of the uncertainty. the gallop job creation index

slowed. economic confidence fell to the lowest level in years. steel production fell, and mortgage applications slowed as well, and we think some of that is a direct effect of the shutdown. what we tried to do was take all of the desperate indicators, each one of them individually noisy and tells you only part of the picture and tries to extract a consistent economic signal from all of the sports indicatog something my colleague, jim stock, member of the economic advisers and one of the country's leading macrotrician, and you see that in the next chart. the blue line is an index that combines all eight variables into a consistent measure of the economy.

once you see it fell sharply in the first 12 days of october, and similar size, not as sharp falls, the last time we did the debt limit brinksmanship, and the eurozone crisis in 2012, and this translates into 0.25 percentage points from the fourth quarter growth rate, 120,000 fewer jobs than we otherwise would have had in the month of october, and i want to stress that's just based on the data we have through october 12th so as we look at object, numbers could change and could potentially get worse. this is how necessary and harmful the shutdown and brinksmanship was and should avoid it and add growth and

jobs, not subtracts. there's a chart out for all of this for those of you who i know turn straight to the appendix of the report. as i said, it's a clear story. private sector forecasters see it in the actual data that it was a significant and unnecessary self-infliblghted wound.

>> good evening, ladies and gentlemen, i'm talking to you tonight in a serious moment in history. the cabinet and leaders are meeting with the president. the state department and army and navy officials have been with the president all amp. in fact, the japanese was talking to the president at the very time that japan's air ships were bombing our citizens in hawaii and in the philippines and sinking one of our transports loaded with lumber on the way to hawaii. by tomorrow morning, the members of congress will have 5 full report and ready for action. in the meantime, we the people,

are already prepared for action. for months now, the knowledge that something of this kind might happen has been hanging over our heads, and yet it seemed impossible to believe, impossible to drop the everyday things of life and feel that there was only one thing which was important, preparation to meet an enemy no matter where he struck. that is all over now, and there is no more uncertainty. we know what we have to face, and we know that we are ready to face it. >> watch our program on our witness, c-span.org/firstlady or see it saturday on c-span at 7 p.m. eastern, and we continue the series live monday looking at first lady, beth truman. >> the center for global interest hosted a discussion on u.s.-russian relations with the

russian am ambassador an former u.s. diplomats discussing syria's civil war and iran and north korea's nuclear programs. this is just under two hours. >> i'm president of the center of global interest. think tank here in dc. we, a few months ago, and i know some of you were, so i see familiar faces, and today we hope to have a very interesting night, and deep discussion and

there's three extremely well known, extremely distinguished russian diplomats which is, i think, in a way a rare situation because usually here in washington you hear of russian positions from american experts, and now we have a chance to maybe hear from the guy who knows it firsthand what the position was and relations. we can see, we can hear, and we can question if you want for russian foreign policy, the united states from russian ambassador himself, and we have to very well know, and i don't -- you can -- everybody knows, ambassador pickerring and

i hope to have a very interest -- i want to have it an informal as possible to make sense. it's not like a formal event. we have five to seven minutes for each of you to speak, and then you can ask questions of each other. question each other as many times as you like. now we have the microphones. we have two microphones here in the room, and so if you want to ask a question, you have to come to the microphones for the question. [inaudible] there's so many people to stand

in line. i know -- i think we all enjoy always drama in the u.s.-russian relations. you need the drama, and when there's no drama, we try to find one. it's like an interesting and long time game, and when there's drama, it raises interest in u.s.-russia relations, but if you look on reality, what's going on between two countries, are they in sy, -- sync? what are the contradictions? in the last so many weeks, there's been some news about u.s.-russian relations, the

president's visit, g8 in moscow, we have syria, iran, which kind of make us scratch head and make us think what's going on there and what's affected with u.s.-russian relations. what's the trade balance, u.s. miss of defense discussion, so many speculation, so many rumors, and i'd like to put some out in order without typical washington dramaization. let's talk business. what's the state of u.s.-russian relations, the view from moscow, the elite, and i would ask to try to have few view points and discussion later to kind of start. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. it's my big pleasure and

privilege to welcome the center on global interest and your guest to russian embassy. we have a discussion long ago about the way his think tank is developing, and he was telling me there's a lot of youngsters interestedded in russian-american relations, and he challenged me to talk to younger generation now of people interested in this relations, and i told it would be not only useful, but challenging and interesting for all of us. >> particularly youngsters. >> even in the moment more than i expected. [laughter] it's not bad because maturity brings additional actions, and limelight to the issues that we are going -- >> it's not the typical role for discussion. >> no. >> in a second i wanted to extend special welcome to my colleagues, ambassador

pickerring and the ambassador with whom we worked in different settings so many years trying to resolve issues that still are being discussed, still mature for being resolved. i would like to limit myself to a number of points, basically three, both russian and american relations, and i hope these discussions we can develop them. my first point is irrespective what is written on u.s.-american relations today, and i will tell you that i start each and every day, my working day, reading the file clippings from american press on russia, and it's one of the most disstressful readings one can find. [laughter] a long time friend of mine from

the press told me good news about russia doesn't sell in this country. that's probably true. i would say that the quality of the relations, the experience sometimes, and by and large, and it's much more substantial than usually portrayed. i would like to remind you that the cold war is over, at least cold war is over for us. we have been limiting use setting where the challenges, especially in the realm of security are very much the same to you. terrorism, preparation of weapons of mass destruction, its economic challenges of the crisises, and we go from one crisis to another trying to bring the world economy out of it together. we also work op a number of

projects, and syria being one of them. i hope we will not only work together on chemical weapons in syria which is very unprecedented kind of partnership, but also we are working on the next stage, and that is political settlement for syria, and i'm very much encouraging and seeing how well we are able to discuss issues on which six months, 12 months ago. we were far, far apart. doesn't mean that we have same positions on each and every issue. what's important that russia and the united states understand the only solution that can be found of the situation needs to be a negotiated one. nothing else will work, and that was basis for us to work

together and it's not a done deal, and it will be very, very difficult process. we all understand it, but nevertheless, we work very, very dill gently to help resolve the issue. we are working on a number of issues like removing the questions about the nature of iranian program, the situation in north korea. we work in more general terms in the context of the treaty trying to reenforce the regime that we, together with the briefs early on were able to set in motion almost 30 years ago. i would add to this couple of new things, maybe they are not that, but very important in the character.

on the backdrop of some differences that we used to have in the months, we participated in joint exercises to combat terrorist threats, and they were not just that, but air force training together to prepare in case we need to work together. it's important, and there's a number of small elements that complaints have given a picture of what russia and the united states can done together. my second point is that in more than 20 years until the end of the cold war, these relations are still under developed. if you consider the potential of the relations between these two superpowers and the superpowers

and countries what huge economic potentials, you'll have a much more developed country than we so far, but our capabilities in the future are certainly much, much bigger and stronger than we have been able to develop so far, so the opportunities for economically and politically are much, much greater than we have been able to explore so far, and i add to this that we can be congratulated that the trade or actually bit by bit in the last five to six years, but not too fast, and the last year it even dropped a little bit. this year it's probably not going to behave, and the year before, if not even a little bit smaller, and that's

discouraging. we could have done much, much better. it is good question as to why everybody recognizes there are the potential that's human. the u.s. has some technologies and certainly has a good market in russia. by the way, i heard today interview by the president of the company, and i didn't know that. the ability in the facility in russia because they consider that for them russia market is very, very important one becoming one of the biggest in europe which most probably is true. it's something that we certainly welcome. it's not only additional good that will be running in the russian streets, but it's, you know, jobs, it's taxes, it's something that needs to be expanded in the future. i would also say that there's russian companies who invested in the united states.

some of them are being very, very successful. i will bring the case of tmk, producing all kind of industrial cubes helps, by the way, the shale gas technology, and becoming, i think, today company in the united states, and we see good examples, and whether it's satisfied with the united states, and i say no. it's the economic partners in russia, and it's the biggest

economic partner; however, the capability to develop capacity and develop the trade ties is enormously high. on top of that i would say that we are lacking direction between the societies of the countries, and we would like to see more dialogue between the the legislatures of both countries because when people talk, explain themselves, explain what they do, and i always -- when they explain what they do not do , the relations -- [inaudible] and my third point related to first and second one that's what we are missing after the more than 20 years after the cold war was over is a little bit of normalcy in the relations. they were absolutely right

starting this discussion suggesting that everybody's looking for drama in the relations on etch and every issue where there's not basis, no reason for any drama because we do a lot of things together because it's serves your interest and receivers russian interests. less drama and more normalcy certainly will bring a different environment for interaction and can help both economic relations and expanded political relationships as well. i would say that among the priorities that we want to look into in the future is the economy, innovation, culture exchanges, and i would add to this, talking to this audience, to the exchanges as well. we would like to see more american youngsters being in russia and seeing for themself what russia is and what russia

is not, and by the same token, certainly russian students coming here learn americans better. so i would sum up what i wanted to convey to you is three points. one, we do significantly more together than what we have credit for. secondly, there's potential, and this relations yet to be further developedded than certainly would eliminate cause of drama and all exaggeration of the differences that we have and differences remain part of the relations and remain in relations between all countries. what is important is that what we have been successful to

overcome them and move further and to develop partnership when it serves interest of both countries, and somewhat more normalcy, we'll have both. thank you. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. i want to give chance to talk to ambassador. >> first, thank you, sergey, for your warm hospitality, and thank you for having us here for the invitation to come, and thank you, steve, for joining on this particularly useful and important platform. let me compliment you on the youth of the audience. i sat here and thought their combined aging divided into ours almost produces a negative number. [laughter] if you know math, you can't produce a negative number with two positive integers, but in

any event, it expresses my appreciation for the people you brought, and, indeed, for the interest i see around the room and for the opportunity to set out for them a view of the relationship which is, in my view, not too widely different. i i gray very -- i agree very much on the first point. a critic said years ago music is better than it sounds. to some extent, that applies to the u.s. heaven russian relationship, particularly with the benefit of your early morning reading in which the absolute ax yum is there's never any publishable news from the u.s.-russian relationship. to some extempt, that's too bad, and we have to recover that, and the second point is very much along that line, and i wanted a few minutes to talk about the opportunities, particularly in the middle east, and i know

steve will talk about some of the opportunities in the areas of arms control and disarmorment and beyond, perhaps. my sense is that the trade relationship leaves much to be desired. i happen to have been involved in post government life, and i had one with the boeing company, that did a great deal of work and still does in russia including an parent design shop in moscow where 1500 excellent russian engineers, about 30% of the women help in design boeing airplanes, and where our relationship in the field of titanium in particular is strong and indeed no boeing airplane flays without russian design and without russian innovation. just to mention one, when the 777 airplane was built, we had an option of having four four

wheel landing gears for two six wheel, and we happened to notice on one of the airplane a six wheel landing gear, and we copied your technology, and, in fact, we got the main beam in that landing gear from you in titanium, and when it came time to watch the landing gear, it offered facility, and we did, and then when it came time to fly the airport and the landing gears squeaked, you said you knew how to take the squeak out, so, in fact, we had a very close collaboration in a modern airplane. i also, as you know, happened to have been on the board of the exarch mentioned last year which has 11 plants in the u.s. and 11 plants in russia. it's the largest producer of pipe year in and year out, playing a huge role as was said in developing the share loyal,

and tight oil business in the united states. let me just say there's a broad future for the relationship. my sense of what can drive the relationship is the opportunity we have from time to time to find win-win approaches. win-win strategies. win-win opportunities. the reset, i think, the last area of positive development was based on a win-win. we now have syria in a very interesting way, potentially opening the door to new cooperation. indeed, it will be has. i think in many ways opened the door to the process of, in fact, destroying president assad's chemical weapons in a way that i think can contribute very seriously to more stability in the area. i suspect that both of us have been worried for the last two years about the potential for

the use of the weapons and during the serious impact they have on a broad and regime way, first on the people of syria, and when they were used in the 21st of august, that brought an issue to a head, but what was clearly surprising was the fact that within the space of 24 hours, a proposal was made, which was inseemingly a throw away line by the secretary of state asked what can be done not to use force, get rid of the chemical weapons, and within hours, the foreign minister came back and said, let's do it. i don't know whether this was preplanned, you can answer the question, you don't have to, he had the foreign minister of syria right there sitting with him practiceically on his knee, and sure enough, within a few hours, yeah, we're going along with this. here we had a deal, but it meant

secretary kerry and the foreign minister were able, i think, fairly quickly to put together to the astonishment of many people a set of ideas that then inform a u.n. resolution which is now implemented. to me, this opens the door to a number of opportunities. i'll just quickly sketch them out. certainly, we worked together on cooperation in the destruction of chemical weapon stockpiles, and that experience, i think, parlays itself into some very useful technical cooperation in the process. i think the u.s. would probably not want to send people to syria. the president said no boots on the ground. although, this is different than the use of the military force in an attack mode, but nevertheless, it might be, but i think that we should cooperate to the greatest extenant possible in our common, technical approach in the area. secondly, if it is necessary, and i believe in some cases it

may be, particularly in some weapons are going to be transported out of syria for destruction, that we have a cease fire of some kind. my open view is that a cease fire is an important step if it's i implemented and main tap. it is, indeed, a significant step that could be, in some ways segued into a political process of dealing with the future of syria. we know there's talks in geneva. meetings ended in lop don to convince the opposition to attend. i'm not sure they are entirely successful, but at least there is some positive noise coming out of that. in those meetings, they have to address a number of issues. my view is, of course, that it is difficult to conceive meetings taking place with preconditions as much as one side wants to have preconditions. you can't settle a problem

requiring the problem be settled in advance, as much as that is to be desired. there's another, perhaps, political, diplomatic activity at work in geneva that we need to look at clearly. up until now, the idea has been that nothing can be agreed until everything can be agreed, and that's a perfectly normal diplomatic idea, but in syria where 6,000 people are killed a month, the hope is an early cease fire arrangement could begin to introduce -- put it this way, humanity, rationality, solarty about the process, and linkage holding up any agreement until everything is agreed seems to be also something of preposterous requirement. i think all parties need to be there, should move quickly to a cease fire, and then deal with

the trench in question, which is always out there of how and in what way to form a new syria government. there's a number of ideas out there, and i won't bore you with them at this stage, but there are things that can be done which will be important. secondly, you mentioned no proliferation, iran, and dprk. i wish i could say that russian american genius have aned idea to deal with the dprk. that's a tough and difficult problem. we'll have to use chinese to work magic on that. the better news is the chinese are getting frustratedded with the dprk and changes of position and maybe this will help, and the three of us together, along with japan and the republic of carerra could do a better job in the future if we found ways to see more eye-to-eye. on iran, there's a remarkable

change in parallel with the syria change with the election of the president. they had meetings a week ago yesterday in geneva, and appears as if the iranians have been somewhat more forthcoming in what they put on the table and even more forthcoming in their willingness to discuss areas of problems and uncertainties. we've been warned by the russian colleague not to expect imagine call happenings in a short period of time. i think that's probably wise. i think it's also unwise to ignore the fact we're on the cusp of change, and that requires from the p5 plus one who are negotiates with iran, including russia and the united states, willingness to face up to some of the tough challenges that compromises will have to be made on their side as well. whether, in fact, a deal goes ahead with a freeze or cutoff in

my view is a highly problematic issue and highly unlikely, but nevertheless, there are divided opinions in the p5 plus one over that, but even more, our country will have to segue from using sanctions to achieve an objective, hopefully to get gerkses going to using sanctions as trading material for a good agreement. that's not easy to get people's mind op capitol hill around that segue given suspensions of iran. i think that here myceps is that the u.s. heaven russian position are close, and we are, in many ways, a closer today to achieving what that closeness of position can produce than we have been for some time, and i think that's also a good sign, and that may well allow us to

take common interests, objectives, potential for a win-win into a further field and i leave it to my friend and esteemed colleague to talk about that. thank you. >> thank you. first of all, thank you for organizing this panel, and for inviting me. i'm going to break comments down into three pieces. first, i want to agree with that was said about the overall relationship between the united states and russia, and that is well it appears to be scratchy, disagreement, it's not as bad as it appears. it's certainly much better than it was in september 2008 when you arrived to take up the position in the aftermath of the russia-georgia conflict, at the lowest point since the end of the cold war. when you look at traditional factors that cause disputed or

conflict between states, they are absent from the u.s. russia relationship. we don't have an ideological dispute, not in cop flight over resources. there's no issues, and some in moscow talk about alaska, but it's not the official position. there's scratchiness. that's due to domestic politics in russia and the united states that they impose relations and obstacles. that's the first set of observations. on the second point, comments on business where i think one of the unfortunate things in going back to when you were in moscow, and i worked on the national security staff, what we wanted to do is how could you build the trade and economic relationship between the united states and russia because it's good not only for the economies of both sides, but it's good for the politics and the relationship providing balance. the u.s.-chinese face 500

billion a year, and that means when there's a sharp dispute between beijing and washington, people think we have to be careful here because there's real money at stake, and if you look at the interaction between russia and the united states, we don't have yet have the balance. that's important, and unfortunately, missing from the relationship. i think there have been some success stories, and, certainly, boeing is really a prime example of what the united states and russia can do together, but there are too few success stories, and part of this, i think, turns op as russia is besides what investment crime, and when i talk to investment businesses, perception is russia is too hard a place to do business, and russia deals with the issues, a fair court system and corruption, you see trade investments increase. now, turning to the assigned

topic of arms control. it's appropriate. i run the arms control initiative at brookings, and we first met when we were arms controllers. in the 1980s, i served in moscow where i had the arms control portfolio, and you were here in washington on the first or second tour with the same portfolio, and if you look at the relationship between washington and moscow over the last 40 years, u.s.-russia, before that, u.s.-soviet, there was arms control useful both in terms of promoting a more stable u.s.-russia strategic relationship, but a driver to produce a broader impact on the relationship and resets an example where the early success in determining the treaty had a broader impact on the relationship, and i hope as, perhaps, as tom suggested, if the sides cooperate on syria, iran, if that injecting positive

momentum in the overall relationship, look at arms control as a possibility of better relations? there's opportunities out there. even when the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is implemented, united states and russia have by the estimate of the federation of american scientists about 4500 nuclear weapons a piece. that means it's 15 times larger than the next third country. there's room for reductions. the russians, i think, raise a valid issue, the relationship between offense and defense, and that means addressing some differences now between washington and moscow on the question of missile defense, and we had the discussion, this debate before. i actually understand, and the russians are correct there is relationship between strategic offense and defense, and i agree at some point that as the russian government is asked,

there should be a treaty regulating missile defense. that's not possible here now. now, that's an american problem, an american problem, but i don't see us fixing that. at this point, if we can't fix it, can we do something else? for the foreseeable future, the gap of defense is so large maybe there's another way to go. what i hope is if we get more of an experienced work together on syria and iran and 245 begins to seep over in other aspects of the relationship, there may be prospects for washington and moscow to return to arms control where they had significant successes in the past. we work on bilateral reductions, making missile defense, issue of contension, but resolve problems and move to the idea discussed in 2010 of a cooperative nato

defense, that's an asset of the relationship, and washington and moscow, well, i think they bear primary responsibility to lead on nuclear reductions, maybe there's a conversation to be had between the two capitals how to engage other countries starting with britain, france, and china as to how they might begin to make some commitments with regards to nuclear arms control. i'll stop with that point, and back to you. >> thank you. >> you know, yesterday, a friend of mine presented me with wonderful record which is called three tenors, and they were seen, and i thought, and playing the role, i think we are doing pretty fine.

jokes aside, i would say that both tom and steve have a lot of interesting arguments i can easily support, and i will start with the economy because it's something we need to address, and we are addressing, and there is a position with 20-plus subgroups that is -- that are cochaired by people on both sides and this commission are working on creating better conditions to encourage business and two countries to work together which is good. we are working at improving the investment climate in russia, it's in our best interest, one of the examples when working

together is a win win. by the way, yesterday, there was a commission held by the prime minister with a number of foreign big companies, including a significant number of americans discussing how to best create a climate that will be inviting more investment, but i would like to say it's not that bad as portrayeded, and i spoke to a number of american companies operating in the united states, and often they say they are not going to withdraw. they see huge market, they feel comfortable, now after number of years they understand what are the illegal, they need to be, and the more other companies understand how to operate in russia, the better it is for the companies and for russia, which is not meant to say that we are

somewhat different from other countries. we just entered wto. by the way, with some assistance of negotiations, and wto frame work, regulations is exactly what create and environment that is understandable, known by all potential investors and trading partners in russia, more writing the first negative benefits of the membership in the first presented against us within regulations by this, and it's normal trading environment and dispute to be resolved through normal mechanism created by all of us to work in the field to get it, and i'd like to say that

the argument that russia is from the innoun enigma in terms of economic environment is wrong. we are normal country. we are market economy. we are young market economy. we have yet to further mature is something we are working on each and every day, but by the same token, we'd like to see more russian companies remitted here, and working in american environments. some of them are here, some more or less successful, and some of them, both on the russian side and american side, you know, when you ask why they are not rushing in the markets, huge move in russia and the united states, oh, we want to see how political relations work, and there's a vicious circle. some look at political relations as a kind of indication as to

how economic relations can develop and the others say, you know, economic relations are ma sured up, and substantially, the better political relations. all of these things go hand-in-hand, and it needs to be developed in parallel, and we are very much interested in doing so with the u.s. government, and before this meeting, i looked at the calendar of the meetings before the new year, and i found, i think, a dozen meetings that will be addressed on both sides on the governmental level and how to increase chances of these two countries to be more cooperative economically. on arms control, arms control has always been very important comengs of russian-american

relationship. we have good agreement implemented to further reduce this, and we are going to level lower and lower, and lower you go, the more important the interrelationships between offensive and defensive weapons, and we have to understand how the area is going to develop around russia. for us, it's not clear, and in absence of that kind of understanding will be exceedingly difficult. moreover, there are other countries that do produce weapons, some in line with the united states, and we certainly would like to implement the others to be part of dialogue. we need to address the interdependence between different parts of security, relationships, ballistic missile

defense included. also, what is going to happen to the space, how is it going to affect weapons op the ground? how the appearance in the future of strategic weapons with nonnuclear warheads change the calculations in the strategic world. we need to not only understand it, but we want to have a conversation that will bring all the elements of the relationship in more predictsble and reliably stable fashion. we are not here. there. an auditional thing, it's not armings com, but together in time, with agreement on further

reductions of strategic weapons, and in the united states, that kind of agreement has gone one to three, and in russia, it's russian-american agreement on peaceful nuclear cooperation. something that was not available for russia and the united states, and the united states and soviet union for digging, and in interest two years ago that opened huge field of possible cooperation between our two countries, both in terms of supply of uranium by the way we have it today as a result of the so-called agreement that is expiring this year, and it's for ten years. we were using ewe rain yum extracted from nuclear warheads to move to the energy level to

feed your electric system, and the head of energy told me in terms of the kilowatt produced, probably the biggest supplier of the united states of sources of energy from outside of the united states, and it's a good agreement that proved to be gladly implemented, and it's explayer pairing, but it doesn't mean we'll stop working together, but it will be a normal commercial basis. we also see some increased interaction in the research, and i hope that in the future we'll see more and more interaction on science and technology development because the united states and russia understand that in the long term we will have to develop new generation

of the answers to be more proliferation resis tent, more inherently safe, and i would label that cooperation in this particular field as a win-win category that tom eluded to. thank you. >> thank you. when you agreed to be challenged by young experts on international relations and young experts in u.s.-russia relations, and people interested in global world, i was happy because, you know, that's what the public has, and the relations for years, and i don't know why i, you are close to each other on the position, and i'm happy with you, but i'm

unhappy with the shape of u.s.-russian relations now, and i think we have to somehow to get through this and get new vision, new concept of what relation should be. i agree, there's a lot of positive things done not because of nature of u.s.-russian relations, but people who have talk about the gentlemen, and, perhaps, i agree there's success, but because there's vision on how boeing could develop. a lot of things done because the ambassador is doing his best, but look in russian public opinion, you are dressed reading things about russia in russian media as you do reading things here about russia. regimely speaking, it's not a great situation. it's hopeless for us to change

the situation. i challenge the younger generation to take it over and attempt to -- we'll have no discussion about missile defense, arms control, because it's one discussion after ten to 20 years of the break up of the soviet union. it's insulting, and the low, very low trade level, incutting for two big economies. it's good for you guys, young people to think about this how you challenge those three, you know, gentlemen, who are the best, and in the state, the relations would be much worse because i think we didn't change the nature of the structure relations. still, we talked about the same things, like 30 years ago, how many warheads we have, energy security, neighbor, georgia, ukraine, and if, you know, so

what is on your agenda. we have a new soviet union, russia moving who knows where, so what's your agenda? i'm interested in strategic view of u.s.-russian relations. don't see it. it's like the reaction of each others' steps. the white house, responded, kremlin does something, says something, you know, it's like this short distance running, like two sprinters running in different directions trying to reach each other, to please each other, i don't know. my faction is the u.s.-russian relations is that there's no strategic vision, and i don't know, including myself, is capable to produce a strategic vision and to offer it to two great countries, great societies. it's probably business school for much younger people. that's why i want you guys to be

here, and now we'll have time for your questions. come to the microphone and introduce yourself and ask questions. before, and i've been the moderator usually, and ambassador, my question is for the breakup of the soviet union, i could be wrong, correct me if i'm wrong, i propose america, and on what washington does. everything with russian foreign policy is everything, and they do this, you know, georgia

today, react, and they do in ukraine, you know, they try to put missile defense system, they do this in syria, in iraq, iran, we have to do this, and never, ever, i could be wrong, but never, ever saw a vision of u.s.-russian relations by moscow. what moscow can offer? ..

>> from the pacific it was very exciting. basically it was part of a global agenda. and so again, the state department agenda had this u.s. nation and it's basically what the united states talked about. that is what we have on the table. to be much more proactive in global affairs. thank you. >> thank you. first of all, in regards to charging the others with their answers as to what is going to happen to the agenda with relations. first of all, i don't agree with

you that russia didn't offer anything and states are reacting to whatever they do. first of all, in regards to syria who did propose a part of this, and has been very discussed long before. especially since no one knew how to deal with it. and we are working together. i would say that we are a little bit ahead of the united states on the negotiating trail and we are very much trying to convince our american partners to be part of the negotiations and finally we would like the united states to be active and increasingly constructive with what is going

on. we also have a number of ideas that will be discussed. we have talked about this and nikolai, your first argument. everyone is looking for drama with russia and america. [inaudible] >> but i can easily tell you that it's not like that in what i am suggesting is that we have an agenda with the united states that has been part of the organization the year before. there is a special economic

field they can take years and years to negotiate. and i find it very encouraging they were able to work together and we were preparing for the presidency, trying to understand each other and our priorities in ways that will be reinforcing myths. and i would appreciate it very much by my political specialists. and secondly, with reaction to this, yes, we have the difference with the united states, we are not asking to deploy a those to other states. we are talking about alliance countries that are important to the united states. so we certainly see this

extension that is trying to take over this whole space under its umbrella and it is providing security as part of the members for the others who still watch the dividing lines moving to the east. so it's not just us. so for the relations we have developed this to the extent that we will feel very much relaxed about it as always. however, i would say that there are a lot of development that can be pretty good and i was the first russian ambassador to present credentials in this regard and i remember the high expectations that we had for the development of the partnership.

the description as to why it's part of a discussion if you'd like to have it and it's very important to our well-being and what we have going on here. especially as we look for the interest in response. the arrangement that favors security as a whole. we do not follow the security arrangement we want to uphold it and we do not have lines in europe and far from russian borders next to russia. so yes, sometimes we must react

and when we deal with this realistic relationship, sometimes we have to take our steps to ensure our security no matter how the situation is going to develop. >> thank you. we will ask a question to the american side. time after time we have talked about the u.s. and russia relations and it is like constant talking and then you hear an expert and an american diplomat when it comes to russia and it is usually something that we don't know what this guy is going to do. we have no real idea. we have no idea about what the

outcome of this or that project will be. we are very revered because there are so many things that we don't know and we have many contacts. it seems like we have no clue what to do. and it is very strange and you can talk to friends and we have a chance to go to moscow and talk to everyone and i think it is quite an easy place to go now. i don't sing it was very difficult with this concept of vision, it's very clear and so we need to develop this and not to jump from left to right. it is like improvisation after improvisation.

it's like a predictable country and there is no policy to ask why. >> i think that some of it has to do with the frustration that both sides feel in dealing with the daily flow of events and not stepping back. some of it has to do with the failure to effect and go back to some of the major objectives and i think that we always thought that russia should be a member of the international community. we thought that they should be part of the world economy and with the efforts to get wto and the a number of other things later on and we look forward to cooperating with russia on a number of areas and what we need to international church

strategic studies and it's very significant. but of course we had different ideas about different issues and many of them are dictated by domestic politics and many of them are dictated by what the other side was doing. in my own view is there is no great strategic secret as to what the u.s. would like to see and i just gave you three principles and that is why back to the early post comments stage. and my feeling is that we could enjoy better communications in a process of fewer surprises and we can enjoy, perhaps a process of even more exchanges and travel than we have before.

and we could enjoy what i call the cold war system to some extent and suspicions is still here on both sides. usually the third or fourth question is premised by saying that it is part of the soviet union or it is still the soviet union. but i can tell you that there is, there isn't much of a counterpart, which is nato. and each one, in a way, kind of stands for a cold war syndrome that still hangs onto us. each of us still has our own system and they create employment and i don't know that they add to the clarity and openness and positiveness that we are about to have.

but of course we know that by definition. but i practice it seems to fall short. and that goes out there and mr. vladimir putin is a very independent man. i'm not sure that he is predictable in the eyes of the united states. maybe russia is considering president obama being the same way. but i'm not sure exactly that we are totally at sea with respect to russia as you characterize it. but from time to time we do find this interesting and different and sometimes shocking and sometimes helpful as we have characterized it. and we thank you. >> i think that america understanding russia is not as bleak as you portray.

there is a significant overhang from the cold war. they think of the soviet union and we are dealing with the process of nato enlargement and at that time we have also started to build a relationship between nato and russia and i think that in retrospect we underestimated just how hard that that will be. but i believe that this is demand driven in part of companies in central europe being part of this. my guess is that for a variety of reason and nato enlargement is pretty much off the table. in terms of these aspects i think that we still see this confrontation that if you look at the numbers that are all going down pretty fast, i was

kind of surprised that the last american battle tank left europe in that key element of manpower, the united states deploy zero of those in europe right now. and so i think to a certain extent we must move past the bogeyman of the past. there are limitations imposed by the domestic politics and i will give you examples. i think unfortunately there still is a certain anti-russian bias. and one example is to continue to apply to russia well more than a decade after they met all the requirements. i tried back in 2002 to argue that some we could not get congress to move and i think that we see that now and what happened to the gentleman was

torn apart. but i think what congress did, there are obviously other countries where there are greater human rights violations and the message was not born of the outrage outraged that we have but that the american congress wants to do part of it. but the flipside is there is anti-american sentiment in russian society and one of the things that i have found the last couple of years is that i think that domestic critical reasons has encouraged the idea that there has been this idea of america as a potential adversary which complicates relations and is specifically complicating the relations in a globally connected world. is that there may be an intention there to do this for domestic reasons. but they say this in the united

states we both operate, i can't save you, but those working on the u.s. and russia relationships, their lives are constrained were more complicated by the domestic environments in the united states and russia, which is something like a hangover from the cold war. >> you know, we are explaining ourselves and politics and i agree. russian intelligence and others as well, i don't think it is reflected upon american politics. >> 90% of the time. >> okay. >> i am the executive director

of russian culture and proud to know that there a lot of american universities here today. my question for all three of you is that you have worked with the leaders of the country and how do you assess the importance of the personal relationship between the men in the kremlin and the people and the men in the white house and do you think that there is a risk and an over reliance on the personal relationship between the leaders to the general institutionalization of a relationship between the countries? >> thank you. >> i think that personal relationships are very important. >> especially when we do this with post countries. but i think that what is first and foremost is to build people to be honest and whenever whatever they say to each other and whatever they do.

to be able to hear each other and we have enjoyed that. even when we have differences as well that are quite significant sometimes. and the ability of our leaders to talk as well. to talk to this point, it has not changed. >> there is no battle between institutionalization and leaders. there is instead synergy to which the good institutional relationships help to prepare the leaders for conversations and talks, which is very important in my sense is that the ability, which is essentially the various kinds of organizations to examine everything from military to help

into space are valuable and significant to the agenda. they cannot overcome the crises of the moment. but they can add what i call a continuing base, which can be built upon. my own feeling is that in some areas where we have a common interest that seemingly fits this where the two of us can stand together on a difficult problem and help to change the minds, that is at the highest order. where we have only negatives, where we resort to this policy and where we are engaged in the ankle kicking then panders to the domestic opposition on each side that i think steve usefully

described. that is what the leaders have to find a way to overcome. if the leaders believe that ankle kicking with each other is the key to their domestic success, we will see the relationship supplemented and pushed down and there have been times when that has been unfortunately the way in which people have proceeded. leaders are paramount and very important ways and they can overcome a lot of difficulties and they can add a lot of extra noise in the system if they choose to do so. it is the institutional relationship that produces ideas and agreements and i think response to their interest in moving things hopefully forward. >> i would second that. i think that personal relations have the impact.

but it is going to drive these institutional relationships. similarly a good relationship can help. but i would not overestimate that. by all appearances when i was in the u.s. government, there was a very positive chemistry between george bush and vladimir putin. but if you look at the russian relationship from 2003 to 2000 and eight, you can have a very positive relationship, but it wasn't able to be just that. human beings count. but i would not overestimate it. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> okay, thank you.

i was lucky to spend time as a student i saw the lack of progress in the relationship between russia and you guys. usa is kind of synonymous with washington and moscow and what is currently being done to enhance the relations that are less burdened by world politics will who are accounted and is there some kind of the development of that. >> i would say that the u.s. is part of russia as well and there are circumstances that are part

of these interests. and we stand to gain by developing more region to region partnerships. and it's something that needs to be developed and we are keen to encourage that kind of relation. we have seen a number of regional individuals try to connect to the states, but it is still something that we want to develop significantly more of, including the exchanges that you alluded to. and those who bleed forward to understand what they are about. but today there is a long way for us to go at the level that i'm giving you. when alaska and russia, as an example -- it is only

3 kilometers between us and we have our country are the closest neighbor of the united states except for canada and mexico. but recently we had to have a conference to convince them to help each other. if you want to fly from one place to another, you have to fly first from tokyo or shanghai. so the regional relations is something that we are trying to look at. and i hope that we will see more responsiveness of this decision as well. >> i think that we have perhaps instituted many more exchanges and we cannot work without cooperation from russia and i think that this is very much the beginning in the late 1980s that carried on and even before that.

when i was the ambassador and russia, the russian fulbright students and others including the long and successful exchange program which we choose out all over russia and brings them here and americans to russia, they organize this as well so that things take off and are moving. and i think that these have in large measure have supported or carried out through the ngos and we have seen the russian crackdown on the ngos and the stigmatization is part of foreign agents is a real impediment to carry this forward. i hope it represents only a kind of short phase in the u.s. and russian relationships and i hope that we will find a way to move ahead because i think that it

is, as you pointed out from your experience obviously that it is those kinds of human relationships as being very important. >> yes. >> i would just like to say that there is a lot of potential for these sorts of exchanges that go to the various areas to help break down some of the stereotypes in both countries. i was distressed to hear a couple weeks ago that there is no longer direct air service because i believe alaskan airlines directed their flights back in the 1990s and that is unfortunate. but i guess it was in 1996 for

1997 that i got invited to a conference in anchorage and he called me and said that you have no idea what is going on between alaska and russia and we had no idea in russia and we are at the regional level that had set up a lot of things in educational terms and we need to figure out a way where these contacts prosper where the two governments no longer contract these interactions which will really change how the two countries look at one another. >> yes, i would just like to say we are talking about times when this was done and we have the russians here and it was done

specifically and it wasn't a political issue of that time. there are a number of programs that we need to be able to speak about in this direction. and the number of programs talked about by the government as well and a number of private initiatives as well and the young professionals and we have the opportunity to work there and meet with these people from time to time and it's very interesting and i hope that this will be extended. but in some ways i would

disagree on the policy. it is the policy to make it more transparent as to who his agenda, when it comes to the political situation and what we have going on. it is what we have as far as transparency goes. and if we do things in political life in russia, much of it comes from these countries and we need to be transparent and people need to understand that, whose agenda you are pursuing. so there is that credit that offers more transparency. the other option is to look at the situation and look at what is happening with the

organization. that is tough because you have a number of issues to put this group together and there are villages in connection with this. we have yet to compare the system which is not open on this particular situation always. >> thank you. >> hello, i am part of the eurasia group and my question is about two separate but related questions in the first is about security cooperation and as you have mentioned, exercises over the pacific and that we are targeting terrorism and you mentioned a more negative light of each country potentially obstructing clear communication between the two countries.

and in the aftermath of the bombing in boston there was a lot of outrage on the russian side to the americans saying that we can have cooperation in this sphere. then yesterday, there was a bombing and the lead up to the olympics, what is the state of security cooperation between russian and american forces and has there been progress since boston. also are there communications that will make american companies who would be in sochi more comfortable that there will not be a terrorist attack there and my second question is what real granular achievements do you hope will come about in the relationship as a result of the

sochi olympics? as opposed to broad positives. >> burst of all as to the achievements of sochi, we are determined to win. secondly, in any case, i think that this environment that we are in, there is security issues that we have in general and i would say the relationships have been resistant for a period of time. but i know that especially with terrorism, there is a very practical confirmation as part of the exchanges and people

working with a particular area. and the reality of that as well. but it has existed and hopefully will continue to develop further. many people talk to each other. >> i would like to mention to the ambassador about the beautiful quote that you had that is a tribute to mark twain. to give him credit and i would like to ask one of the areas traditionally during the cold war cooperations and space, the space station, the u.s. and russia still remember that they are no longer alone and you can

consider them preeminent. russia has problems with the proton rocket and a kind of lack of vision in the sequestration, which is hitting nasa today. that remains an area of cooperation. we have a new item on the horizon to be solved, which is the asteroid threat. we don't see that too often, but it does appear every now and then and it will continue to occur as we go down the road and are only ability to deal with those are our space capabilities to deal with it and russia has made that the defense against the asteroid's according to the state just the other day and the u.s. is trying to be a part of this. that they are aware of the

danger and the russians have made proposals with something that he has called a strategic defense of the earth in dealing with this question, it seems to me that russia and the u.s. is always cooperating that's not only the issues of common concerns but what we used to call the common ends of mankind, and i think that the asteroid threat is not just our countries but the entire country, it is also part of mankind and shouldn't there be some form of collaboration which gets this attention despite the we have done this, there is an interest to make that a son of cooperation on the united states. >> is something that is very important to us.

so we have enjoyed much of this preparation in the space program and we do not know any other area of preparation where it is like this. it is like a daily occurrence and i have visited them in houston and other areas they know the children and families. we have the same mission and we know what we need to do for the two countries. they are fully coordinated.

it wasn't until we had a long discussion to ensure our access while we do not have this end because we knew each other and they can easily work and reliably work together. including what we are now doing with the space station that is unprecedented in its something that they already take for granted and it is part of the space preparation that is a good indication as to how it needs to be done. when it comes to these ideas with popular captures of the imagination, it is something that i space agency has hunting for quite a while and i know

that we are going to be interested in partnerships with the united states and we need to understand that the program is part of the united states and certainly i believe it is my point of view that we stand to benefit from working together. >> i would just like to say thank you. >> i think that space operations are so complex and expensive and it makes sense to cooperate in these ways. >> we have time for four more questions. please try to keep it short. >> the last two years russia has been a superpower and then 20

years ago there's been a loss in the breakup of the soviet union. how has that affected the foreign-policy and then on the other end, how does that affect the u.s. where as 30 years ago they were the priority and now they are one among many. so who would like to start a? >> okay, please go ahead. >> okay, first of all, i would take this issue as to whether we have last lost the status of superpower, that is something that needs to be part of this. and then we also need a piece of summary of doing a report by the

research service of the u.s. congress that was issued today. it is about russia and what russia presents to the united states. russia is still a superpower and secondly they have influenced us significantly, the interest of national security with the united states in europe and in the middle east and also asia. russia plays a very important role in russia owns neutral resources with a greater range and scope and the list

continues. >> 30 years ago you would've had to read that last. >> all i would say is that i think the congressional research probably has provided a fair and interesting estimate of the situation and i don't think there is any loss of interest in the state department or the united states. i think that there are other countries that we know of, including china, which we have discussed here, that is gathering strength as well from becoming part of the world powers that we all have to deal with. and to some extent they may have diminished the bipolar nature of the cold war relationship in which we find ourselves in at this time. and not all polls are equal. and i don't mean your neighbors, but in fact not all countries

are equal but necessarily those that play in the larger fields are significantly more important and i think each of us is trying to develop a set of relationships that deals with that and they have a complex web as we go ahead. i don't think that the u.s. and russia and china were any set of individual relationships have gone to the two against one phrase at the 3-year-old level in the park, necessarily succumbing to that. but i do think that in many ways this presents unusual and unique challenges and i do not dispute the conclusions that sergei kislyak read-out. >> i might have a different perspective. i think as the research service and there are very important

issues in some very important questions on which american and russian interest will sometimes conflict. but i do think that it is different from a relationship between the soviet union 30 years ago and how it reflects the changes in russia in the last 20 years after the collapse of the soviet union in the part of that reflects the rise of china and india and such and as a result i think if you look at the american president's agenda, i think that he probably spent less time thinking about russia then his counterpart did it in regards to this before. >> good afternoon. my name is haley peterson and i studied for two years at st. petersburg state university and interned in moscow and i promoted student exchanges because there was a lot that i learned there that i definitely

wouldn't have gotten by staying here with russia. my question today is whether or not you think the addition of a group like nato or the eu within the russia relations would be able to bring these perspectives and ease this in terms of specifically nuclear negotiations and reduction area or if you think that it might just create more problems. >> that is a very good question. first of all, there are negotiations and negotiations because we have addressed the weapons including the ones that have led to the conclusion of strategic weapons and we have treated it as being successful

in this regard today. not only legitimate, but a very essential part of things including security. because it is part of the land that is so important to us. and this includes the united states that is part of the oce and the framework of the conventional weapons regulation. so the security in europe certainly needs to bring all of us together and there are a number of other issues where we work together. this includes your europeans, because they call it three plus three and there are the west of us as well. >> so we have this as part of

the rest of europe as well. so there are a number of issues where we can and we do work together and together in many instances we have a lead of the negotiations. >> yes, i would say that the negotiations take place because countries are willing to participate and have things to offer, as well as things to receive. bringing people into negotiations because they'll will have different ideas are not a central part of the negotiations and that is a little bit more than awkward and increase the notion that you are bringing the thin is that the problem. i think that as was pointed out in the a number of areas, we have joined with sun and others with respect to iran in a number of other areas which we have

this and we are all there together to find answers to a set of problems. and i think it would be a serious mistake in the u.s. russian negotiations at this stage with respect to further reductions of strategic offensive vehicles and nuclear weapons. but as steve pfeiffer said, i think that sooner rather than later, people who hold nuclear weapons but maybe not at the same level that we do, they need to be part of the process of transparency, and this is an interesting comment on what your suggestion is because it takes us into an area where they may not yet be able to be part of the compromises, but they need in some ways to be capitulated in the way in which the process went. and then there is the reverse of your point. i think the two big players might have something to help them understand rather than the other way around.

>> it seems to me that this by definition will be easier. >> at some point this process has to be multilateral. and i would argue the negotiation that could bring u.s. levels down to 22500, which is sillier than anyone else. and then you have to maybe start with the baby steps. giving us transparency, what is the total number of weapons that you have. and then can you go a further step and say that we are not going to ask you to negotiate a reduction or even a legally binding limitation but could you

take on as a political commitment that you will not increase the number of your weapons as long as the united states and russia are coming down. if you can get to that point, the next step must be a multi-lateral and the welsh version. >> yes, this is part of what we talked about in defense, and to answer your question as well. >> hello, my name is emily smith. i am from the georgetown school of service. and i am interested in the differences of american and washington worldviews and how it impacts us and how we think differently and contributing to this job that we see reflected in the media. this is for the ambassador and i'm hoping you could tell me

what are the key differences in our worldviews and mentalities and what can american political and business actors in power now due to better understand and engage what the russian policymakers think and do. thank you. >> that is quite a question because it requires an hour of explanation. [laughter] i discovered this issue with a friend of mine and we were discussing the differences in the world perception that we have that some americans have. we'll we discuss in the language we can use, and the united nations, we will do this and that and we will pursue in the united nations what other countries see as part of this

initiative. if you look at the united nations, that is what we will do first. because we all must abide by this and part of the organization in the system that created that we have created together and for us what is important as well on the basis of this as well. >> okay, we have the last question. >> hello. my name is [inaudible name] i am organizing several meetings here

and there are 5500 people and i am in the social media market. so i want to start with the idea that a norwegian person brought up just right here, i want to continue to go one step further and basically talk about this condition, not we the president, but we the people. i would disagree with nikolai who said that it's no strategic vision. and he spoke about the people to people relationships and this and that and so on and so forth.

so since i am organizing this and building relationships and i happened to teach the marine corps, personally i have trained for 16 years and pilot of the marine corps'. and i would say that there is a bias, but basically we are together and yescally we are together and yes we watch movies and we understand this so on and so forth. so getting back to the point here. since i was raised in the soviet union and at the end of this elite unit i got a call, i understand the power of soviet

bureaucracy. so to enhance and end i will do whatever i can to help this, and in terms of this, let's say the proximity is from the american embassy, i need to know what magic words i need to say. we are part of the russian cultural center.

>> well, you know, we have a kind of political tourism that goes on that can just be a waste of time. we have to understand there are

a number of organizational things as to how to get money to finance one of the most difficult systems and how to best organize is to be able to see what we want to do. [inaudible] there is a look at the organization as well. and i think that is the best recipe that i have ever had. >> we have a very different global role.

>> i think that choices and the level of danger is quite different and this is a lack of ideas and a kind of intellectual dead end. and this is how we have tried to

shape the u.s. and russia relations. and this is part of this. and we will count endlessly on this. and this includes the way that we change how the relationships will work and so so this is like

how the speakers have been talking about this. and so far it is like we have to do our best to have this and be much more open about the problems and tried to be more open about the political successes. there are a lot of things going on so where will we be, that is

like what we have to think about because it is extremely important. and i think that we follow the great experts and they have appeared to speak and i am really grateful to be here with the ambassador today. to share this point of view. and i thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]