>> thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you for the presentation. particularly -- [inaudible] the stable which was today. [inaudible] >> i would be -- i would rather hear the discussion then you think of ducking so i will just say less than 60 second worth of comment. and thank you to the panelists for great conversation and to ambassador for laying out so many points from his perspective. it is really helpful, interesting, and important. i'm going to mostly disagree on two points with tom. or clarify two point i think are important. number one, on syria and iran, actually i think it's the exact opposite of you pose the problem which is it's not that the

united and russia disagree on the outcome. we actually agree on the outcomes. in each of the case where we disagree where the challenges in both case how you get to the outcomes. that's where all the diplomacy and the negotiations and the meetings are focused. we agree in iran without a nuclear weapons program and a nuclear a peaceful nuclear program under appropriate international law monitoring. we agree on that. we have to different views about how you get to that. we worked out a common approach we're now implementing. on syria, similarly we agree we want syria with a government that is answerable, accountable to its own people. we agree that can only be reached ultimately through a political process. through negotiations and the political process. question agree we do not want syria to be an environment in which extremism is implemented and able to operate threatening not only the people of syria but

also syria's neighbors. where we struggle to find a common approach in how to get there. again, right now we're in a place where we're finding those ways partly because we have the responsibility with the international community. ukraine, i take the point about u.s. and russia talking together. we need to find -- i think we haven't talked about it -- we maybe have more common interest right now apparent in what we don't want. which is a violent break down in the country. the raws and the capability of the political institutions and the ukraine began state to be able function and complete meltdown of the ukraine began economy. i guess the challenge from those -- i won't speak, but for russia probably common interest in ukraine can we find a way forward toward those. it's a good challenge. the last point, while maybe some congressmen -- commentators in civil society in the media or think tank might want russia to have a less than

successful olympics. there's absolutely no question whatsoever that what president obama wants is for a successful, safe, wonderful display of the best of what the olympics spirit is about. we have offered whatever help we can offer to the russian government, which is responsible itself for the conduct of the olympics. and that we have worked very hard in fact i almost couldn't come today. we are working hard to achieve the outcome. thank you for the opportunity clarify. there's no question. [inaudible] one more question. able to get [inaudible] for american personnel at least as far as protecting american concerns. >> so i'll repeat the host is always responsible for security, for the olympics and we respect that russia is responsible.

we have received the kinds of accreditation extra accreditation and extra presence for u.s. liaison officers. we have received on the ground support and cles contact with russian security officials. so the coordination is going quite well. and it is within what you would expect from this country offering to i guess country participating in the olympics. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] i'm grateful you found the time to -- [inaudible] particular pressuretive you are willing to come. now is the political -- [inaudible] and particularly because we have -- members as well we know each other pretty well. at least most of us know each other fairly well. it's not necessarily true with

c-span audience. introduce yourself briefly but clearly. >> wayne, american foreign policy counsel. soch irk is not just a venue for attic events but early june the site of the g8 summit under the g8 presidency which began in january. i would like to hear if any member of the panel have thought as to how the g8 mechanism and the fact it is this year under a russian presidency might contribute to the topic of today's discussion which is the improvement of the bilateral relationship between russia and the united states. >> well, first of all we want to show up in sochi and have some at this time. obviously, if we do that there would be and should be a bilot ram between the two presidents which gives them an opportunity to go over what the agenda should be in u.s. russia

relations. both areas in which we are cooperating where we're looking forward to deeper cooperation aiming toward certain goal and area of problem in the relationship that have to be dealt with. that is -- obvious to me. there will be -- as you know, and a lot of common as we approach the g8 summit. again, questions particularly coming after the discussions we've had in this country over the past several months whether russia is should be part of the g8 and how we deal with that and the other -- there's a difference between the american political establishment deals with russia the way they talk about russia and the way the administration would. i have no doubt that the administration has a reasonable working relationship with the russian counterpart. they operate in a political environment that put constraint

on what they can do in the relationship more broadly speaking. the other point i would make is that when we're talking about the bilateral relationship. i think we too easily fallen the idea we have shared interest. that we have an agreed vision of what the end game in syria is supposed to look like. what the end game in iran is supposed to look like. tactics determine outcomes. if we can't agree on the tactics to get someplace, i suggest that part of the reason is that we don't agree in the place we end up. there's a lot of work that needs to be done on the relationship. we can't do that relationship without high-level interaction between the two presidents and the people below them that are empowered to deal on the president's agenda. i would hope that the priority would be not only what the g8 does an institution but the united and russia are going to put on the bilateral agenda for the meeting.

>> just brief promise me. one thing that seems just obvious to me from the start is talk about -- you have all the right parties involved in the g8 to talk about free trade and regional economic integration and what should be the underpinning principle to avoid the scenario we're in now where the united states is negotiating free trade agreements from one end from the atlantic end and the pacific end russia is building a free trade zone, which frankly, we perceive to be threatening and europe per receivers to be threatening. things come to a head around, for example, ukraine, around potentially countries in central asia. they have a conversation what are the underpinning principles. how does it interact? can we simply underscore our commitment to not let the tail wag the dog in to a conflict agree politically. >> jacob?

jacob from the national interest. >> quick question. the new conventional wisdom that seems to be crystallizing in washington, at least judge by the cover of the new republic in a piece by jackson deal this morning, is that president putin has reached the power already. and headed downwards. not because of disdense or -- in moscow. the russian economy is stumbling. does anyone on the panel agree or disagree with this analysis? >> why would you say subsequent -- you could make an argument that putin has reached for various reasons. question would be how far do you think he's going to fall? the argument in this country and the convention nam wisdom appear

it's going to ab major fault. i think it's far from obvious at this point. obviously there a host of problems that russia faces going forward economic among them the question about how you build a political system that is capable of dreaming with the multiple stresses whether they be from what we calm the so-called urban liberal middle class of some sort. you have socioeconomic discontent that has to be dealt with. i think you have a major problem that hasn't received nearly as much focus in this country as it should. the whole question of russian national identity. something putin has been coping with in the last couple of years. in particular because of the the country needs a secular identity

of going forward if it's going to hold again. and going to be able to manage get through some of the difficult economic periods that are inevitable in lifetime of any country. if you look at the projections for the economy, it's the next year and the year after that that are difficult. you go out a few more years and potential for more robust growth is possible. not on the order of 7 or 8% in putin had in the first decade of power. but 3 or 4% would be respectable in our terms. whether it's sufficient in the russian context, i think it's something we need discuss. the short answer is yes we probably reached a peak. i think it is far from obvious he's going to fall off a cliff in the next couple of years. >> i agree with him. i think putin was scuffle in foreign policy.

he was not successful. he was totally unsuccessful in dealing with russian corruption which is so -- [inaudible] looking at ukraine -- there was restraint inspect one explanation we understand that if you -- [inaudible] war in ukraine you have no idea where it is going to end. it's not an inspire ration. it's like bosnia, it's all mixed together.

the second thing is, when putin is probably thinking about his options he has to say to himself, well, the united states is against us. the european union is against us. [inaudible] major confrontation with the united states and the european union when russia, in term of the economy is not exactly a basket case. but pretty close to that. and that simply the russian economic predicament imposes in my view -- [inaudible] severe limit on what putin is able to do. >> can you introduce yourself? the u.s. russia business council. thank you to the panel for the informative presentation. i want to underscore -- don't have a question. want to underscore the importance of the economic relationship in the sense that yes, obviously there i think we are seeing a lot of cooperation

on the geopolitical issues. but i think it's important not to lose focus on the economic initiatives because, you know, we talk about obviously a lot of focus focused on geopolitical. on the economic side he had successful visit here to washington in december. we have -- a lot of our members consider to be important as we do it which is a bilateral investment treaty. it's a front and center of new initiative going forward. by strengthening the economic agenda and keeping that in our gaze continually. it's an important initiative moving forward that obviously strengthens the relationship and moves it forward. i wanted to share that.

>> okay. >> the pulitzer center. there are many interesting points that have been raised, and two of them appeal to me particularly because it brought me back to the time i was studying russian history. that is direction of russia. whether it is a western country, eastern of some hybrid form and tom's comment about russia's search for a national identity. i regard those questions and answers to both of those questions rather fundamental to our understanding where russia is today and may be going. and i'm wondering whether in moscow as you russian experts go there and visit and talk. is it a subject of conversation at all?

i'm asking a question. the decision making body in washington. do you all think about that as a question that ought to be addressed? [inaudible] [laughter] [inaudible] i have had discussions about this over many years. the quo now talking about particularly now of putin trying to find a conservative view -- i would argue european values. no matter how you talk about develop the economy or how they develop the political system that the underten is all about what is russia. where are we headed? where is our relationship with

europe and the united states to broad terms. where do we fit and song it is front and central in all discussions political discussions in moscow and certainly an undertone of any conversation that you have with the russian about key political and economic issues. let me just add. this isn't marvin exactly the question that you asked. i think it's something for us to think about. we're having an active debate in the united states about our identity. as a country. both domestically in terms of the composition of our society and what our values are, but also internationally in an international system where as dimitri mentioned we have an

emerging chinese super power who some people may eventually have an economy larger than our own. and what does that mean about our role in the world? and if you look at polling data, it's clearly something that the american people are thinking about. and actually quite worried about. so certainly russia has been having this very wrenching internal discussion since the collapse of the soviet union about what it means to be a vush shan citizens and russia's role in the world. but i don't think it's unique today. i think few people have more at stake and will qualify to talk about the russian neighbors from kazakhstan. which i have to say uniquely

successful in maintaining their independence and their tsh they need to make a choice between russian and europe. >> thank you for joining us. thank you very much for giving the floor up. actually, i agree with dimitri saying we lack optimism here. listening to the pentations i think we have a gloomy picture of what is happening bilateral relations and about the olympics. i would actually turn this around and say why don't we think in a positive way? why don't we have positive ideas to work on and incorporate them? because just take the example of kazakhstan. i remember the first years of our independence when all the experts were saying that kazakhstan is the least of the country of the former soviet union which could survive. we a diverse ethnic composition

of the country. it was probably -- [inaudible] you say 20 years down the road. today we can say that we only survived but we today are relative one of the vast country in the area. we have good economic development and looking forward. we are not living in the world of safe and secure and it's quite unfortunate that we have quite a different environment in the region. and of course, if we listen to all the gloomy pictures and terrorism and separatism, organized crime, drug trafficking, everything, it seems to me we shouldn't do any events in our region and just wait until the situation gets better. but we are not doing this. we just live in the real world. we do a lot of different events, and as for olympics, i think the

tourism is high. and we understand that and i very much like the words of ambassador saying that, you know, they are aware of the situation. but they still trying to do this as a friendship -- [inaudible] and the rest of the things. as i understand him. we have the same situation. we do a lot of big events. we would like it to be -- [inaudible] we would like the countries to come our region to look what we've done. it's a long vision. among the countries. they're ambition but very good for us to go and we try to

accomplish things against any problems. any issues we have in that area. i'm here just to tell the audience. of course i understand that should look at the negative sides of things. but i think at the same time we probably need to change the promise. let us think about positive things. not forgetting about negative ones, but let's give priority to positive thinking. in reeblg in and central asia we are sensitive to what is happening between the u.s. and russia. we don't want to choose. we would like to see the area as a area of cooperation rather than confrontation.

that makes the life of all the different countries in the area much more difficult. why should we have to be in the situation -- why don't we be in the situation where we get together, think how we make the world safer and more secure. they achieved results. when they don't cooperate it's a failure. i think that lead us think about more cooperative agenda. i would likely any tank here in washington look at the long-term strategy how we make the relationship positive. that will help to all the arab countries because we still -- [inaudible]

to be ours. thank you. >> thank you. 20 years of success. kazakhstan clearly a remarkable case of a country and obviously -- and basically able to work with everyone. it's not easy. i think they demonstrate it's not possible.

and -- [inaudible] thank you very much. [applause] the winter olympics begin in russia on friday. now a discussion about security concerns at the olympics. former deputy of national security spoke about it for strategic and international studies. it's 90 minutes. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to espn the magazine. wait a second -- seait a csis. the center for strategic international studies. and no, it's --ational no name is andy. i'm the director of the russiaf asian program.he welcome to our version of fridar morning live.simornin we're going to bge discussing te olympicswe domestic regional ang securityth challenges challenges and i apologize for the late

start. i am completely responsible for the late start. and let me just say for the record, it is not cool to be late to your own event, okay? i don't condone this kind of behavior, and i think later on in the day i will be tarred and feathered outside of the building here in the center of washington, d.c. all right, brief introduction. this is the first time that the center for strategic and in his studies has actually published a report about an olympic games. this is done by our former visiting scholar, brin analyst of asians of caucasian affairs and security issues come islam, extremism, et cetera, et cetera. and it's got a really cool cover i think. terrific report, for my money the best thing you can read about some of the challenges and issues around these games.

so that's one unique aspect about these games. never before has a winter olympic games been held in a subtropical climate but the fact that the subtropical climate happens to be in the country that actually occupies the most territory in the arctic region is rather an almost as we'll. never before has olympic games been held in the region in such close proximity to a conflict zone. never before, although more about this conflict zone, never before has olympic games been held na conflict, in such close proximity to conflict zone in which was, in fact, the site effectively to civil wars in the country that is holding the games. one of which effectively russia lost in the mid 1990s with chechnya and one of which was

one, the zone in the northern caucasus they are referring to where my esteemed colleagues will talk at greater length about the challenges, you know, when mr. putin went down to guatemala city in 2007, it was a period of relative, relative quiet since i would say in the area. chechnya have been somewhat stabilized, and the frequency of violence in the other republics, the northern caucasus, had not begun to escalate perhaps to the degree that it did shortly thereafter. nevertheless, it was a very, very risky decision i think for the international olympic committee to do so. never before, more on the conflict zone, never before has olympic games been held in even closer proximity to a country

which the host country fought a war with after the olympic committee awarded russia the games. referring of course to the russian georgian war. sochi, if anyone, depend on where you are in sochi, is 10, 15 kilometers away from the region of georgia which the russian federation acknowledges independent after the august 2008 war. another pretty unique aspect about these games. never before in my lifetime, my lifetime, i was born february 13, 1959, be clear about this, never before in my lifetime has olympic games been so politically controversial, and so identified with the leader of the host country. that, of course, being vladimir

putin. so no, we're not going to talk today about -- well, let me just say one more thing. because we are in washington, d.c. i don't think ever before has a sports icon from washington, d.c. been so close is associated with the foreign host, the leader of the country, vladimir putin, of these games are obviously i'm talking about alexander ovechkin, the russian hockey team and is a friend of putin. very close friend i believe. so an interesting aspect of the washington, d.c. angle. i've already said too much because we have a really terrific set of panelists in

which i will give brief introductions for all of them. .. speak. the first speaker will be jeffrey mankoff, to my left, as the deputy director and fellow here at csis of the russia and eurasia program. speaking after jeff will be orden on, analysts and advisory board member of the geostrategic forecasting corporation and gordon has been a visiting fellow here at csis. and i would point to in particular a report that he wrote on getting the caucasus emirate right, and he is one of the world's leading authorities on the extremist groups terrorist groups individuals who are, in fact, threatening these games. gordon has a new book ng o who are in fact threatening these games. gordon has a new book coming out

very shortly. gordon, the title of the book is yes, the caucasus mujahideen global jihadism and russia's north caucasus and beyond. it would have been good for your publishers to think more about having this book out before the games but so be it. he will be speaking next and focusing on that topic. jeff is going to kind of focus more on really the russia angle and what these games mean for russia and what they mean for putin and that angle. i am very very pleased and happy to welcome from the carnegie endowment for international peace tom de waal who is a senior associate and one of the world's leading authorities on the caucasus more broadly. tom also has a reasonably new book out.

sorry, c-span. in your bio, wise in the name of your book a little easier to find? what is the title? >> i just did a new version. >> a new version of your old book. you have got to work on the marketing a little bit with that. >> of course you will have to read it. it's about the conflict in an updated version. >> okay. still i didn't have the title. sorry. and then finally batting cleanup for very good reasons is our colleague here at csis in a transnational threat program senior adviser juan zarate and

one is going to be talking a think more about kind of the broader terrorist threat and in particular how the u.s. is looking at this and he will be speaking from his direct experience serving in the bush administration and responsibilities with monitoring and dealing with these kinds of threats. thank you very much for being here this morning and let me turn the floor over to jeff. >> thank you and thanks to all of you for coming out this morning. i want to talk a little bit about the decision to hold the olympics in sochi and the role of putin and the significance of the games for putin and the russian political elite more broadly. as andy alluded to the decision to hold the olympics in a city like sochi was a fairly extraordinary one. this is one of these few cities in russia that doesn't have a serious continental climate. it's incredible that they are worried there might eisen out at the ski resorts in their stock piling it. given the proximity to the conflicts and given the weather

challenges why on earth would you hold the olympics in sochi? and here it comes back in a lot of ways to the personality of putin and to the russian political elite more broadly. sochi has been a kind of summer capital for the russian elite going to back at least as soviet period. this was a resort town where a lot of the elite would take their families in the summer to go to the beaches, where putin ended number of his close associates also own property. and as far as the proximity to the caucasus i think there's an important note here as well. you have to remember that the instability that we see just down the road from sochi today is very different from how the region looked in 2007 when the games were awarded. at that point the second war in chechnya had come to a close and

the wider expectancy across the north caucasus hadn't taken off yet so there was a moment when it looked like this area was being stabilized when the worst of the excesses from the previous decade had finally come to an end so for that reason there's an important element of trying to use the olympics as a way of showing the ability to return to this region and more broadly is using it as a avenue for economic development that would lay the foundation for more durable version of stability to break out across the wider region. now of course russia and the caucasus in 2007 looks a lot better than they do today. in a lot of ways, the sochi games look kind of like a soviet era not only prestige project but also something on this idea of megalomania, this idea that we often associate with soviet infrastructure projects like the real roads or the dams or the

reversal of rivers that has been contemplated at one point from siberia. it's a very top down operation. it was an opportunity to channel vast sums of money into construction venues. it was an opportunity for that money to be siphoned off very at the same time though, because so much emphasis was being placed on this, because so much of the prestige of putin and the broader elite was tied up in it there has been a lot of attention to what's going on inside sochi and actually the picture has been not a particularly pretty one. if you look at the results of what has happened so far i think that the idea that putin wanted to delay when he went to guatemala city in 2007 that russia was back in stability has returned to the north caucasus, those those are increasingly being called into question and i will leave my colleagues to talk about the security challenges but i want to focus for a moment on the corruption and the

broader political context which i think is also undermining the message that putin is trying to get across about what these games mean for russia. now, he said russia would spend $12 million on running and preparing for these olympics. already that would be one of the most expensive winter games in history. the actual figure it looks like is going to be above $50 milliod 51 million is the figure disclosed by the media. in part that is not surprising because of the lack of infrastructure and the need to build up the venues to build transportation corridors to actually put things in place they are going to need for the own picks. at the same time they estimated one third of the money was outright stolen and again in that sense it's a very russian story.

one of the more piquant instances coming out of this is the story of the construction of the road between sochi and oslo. it's a very short road and i think it's about 30 kilometers. the cost of building it was estimated to be 8.7 billion dollars. as one journalist pointed out for that you could paint the entire -- most of the funding for this and all the other are coming from public coffers. the government keeps emphasizing that no, actually a lot of this is private. some of the oligarchs are being ousted out of their own pockets to pay for different kinds of olympic venues and different construction projects and that is true but at the same time this investment is being underwritten by loan guarantees from public banks such as michigan on bank which means in

the end it will be the taxpayers on the hook. at the same time the construction has been a huge move for organized crime resulting in kick backs, bribes and shake downs the whole litany of activities that one would expect from the russian underworld. now, given the heightened attention to the security challenges and the fact that russia faces a whole host of broader difficulties that have been spreading over the last couple of years i think it's unsurprising that there doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm inside of russia or out for holding these olympics. we had a speaker come here about a week ago who is the leading russian opposition politician and we were discussing this. he said he remembered the contrast and he was pointing out the contrast between the attitudes in russia today and

the attitudes in moscow in 1980 when the summer games were being held for the first time. he said in 1980 there was a palpable sense that everybody was in this together and a sense of pride that the soviet union with the hosting the olympics. he said today there is much more more -- much less interest and people just don't care. they are aware of the corruption and aware that none of this is that owing to benefit them once the olympics are over and they question all the expenditures they put into it and of course they are worried about security. it seems according to the most recent estimates i have seen that only 70% of the tickets have been sold for most of the olympic events which are a week out from the opening ceremonies is it pretty extraordinary votes of no confidence. at the same time holding the olympics and holding the olympics in sochi has really put russia in the global media

spotlight at a time when the country i think is facing a number of challenges. global spotlight has really emphasized where russia seems to be going off track. a lot of the problems that are accumulating in the country. there's obviously a lot of local media attention now on russia's challenges and i don't think it's the rising that the u.s. delegation is going to be understood. if you don't see them look at the uniforms for the german team participating in the olympics. it's become an opportunity for the outside world which is increasingly frustrated with putin's russia to make a point about all of the things that they are struggling with. now i think the government recognize some of the problems in the run-up to the own picks and try to take some limited steps to address what they expect to be the most salient sources of the complaint. russia's most prominent prisoner

was released shortly before the olympics. the punk band riot was released and impart it seems to be an effort on the authorities to put things in a good light for the global media to change the narrative ahead of these olympics. but i don't think they have succeeded. i think if you look at the list of who is not going to the opening ceremonies among international leaders that probably, that does actually say a lot about how the rest of the world views these games and views current political developments in russia. president obama's not going. vice president biden is not going in angela merkel is not going. that is an interesting commentary in itself i suppose it as far as the narrative for

its hard to say the olympics have been a success and if there's a problem with one of the venues that they'll soar if there's a terrorist attack to think that narrative is only going to get more negative trait at the end of the day it's important to remember who the main audience is. yes it's important for food to emphasize to the international community that russia is back and russia can hold an event on the scale of these games but the most important audience is domestic. how this plays in russia is in a lot of ways more important and so far you know i think we haven't seen an upsurge of enthusiasm. now if the russian team does very well and they win a lot of gold medals in the olympics go off without a hitch than once the games are over after the closing ceremonies happen we will be able to evaluate them but i think right now to think these olympics are going to function the way that putin and the elite wish them to function.

>> thank you very much jeff. very comprehensive and transient and i would note that lindsay vaughn is not going. i don't think that's a political statement. it budget for these games reminds me of the question of trying to estimate what the soviet military budget was. nobody knows. i don't think anybody knows what it is and i don't think we are ever going to find out. let me turn to andy. >> this is an important turning point in the russian district depending on the outcome of the games. we are very likely to see some kind of catastrophic terrorist attack. a complete reversal of what has been left of a thaw under president medvedev and even more

sharp turn to more hard-line policies under putin. so it's a very important moment and terms of the hard-line but be on the post's joel on model clamping down and rolling back of democracy in russia. okay to the threat. about six or seven months ago i wrote a paper for the jewish forecasting corp. on the jewish thread and underlined six features that i thought were important. first and i'm talking about potential perpetrators within the caucasus and the mujahideen, with potential attacks. first is his suicide bombings run by the dock is donnie network the so-called dock is done the left which could be locals are ethnic russians to islam which the dagestan

specialize in recruiting for suicide bombings. attacks perpetrated by a foreign group independently with the mujahideen, a possible chemical attack involving groups in the caucuses some have -- you have returned from syria and may have acquired chemical weapons and there were two attempts inside of russia that appear to be focused on perhaps targeting chemical weapons. suicide bombings run by caucuses osman and the brigade which he realized back in 2009 and there have been since the formation of the caucasus 54 suicide bombings carried out since october 2007 in russia. and finally or next to last

attacks possibly involving the copper dean or ethnic -- given the location of the olympics in the massacre that occurred in 19 century. there is an interest in the mujahideen to participate and then second are attacks on cities other than sochi. it wouldn't take a major attack in moscow for the coordinated attacks under the mrap emirates base of operations near the caucuses. in st. petersburg some kind of a major attack or event would be enough i think it helps oil the

olympics. so let me look at each of those briefly interned in more detail. the data stem -- dagestan suicide bombers are ethnic russians suicide bombers. this largely comes from a group led by a guy by the name of abu mohammed issa dare of -- and the cod the by the name of sheikh mohammed out from me. also ahead of the central sector in the central sector there are two key subsectors. one is the montage sector. it turns out to have been the place where at least according to the national antiterrorist

committee reported yesterday that the two suicide bombers who attacked on december 30 were from there. they apparently have several under it in one of those is of ethnic russian. previously there were reports of a group and that group may have been involved in some of these attacks. dad just in his use -- dagestan has used converts in dagestan. a colleague of theirs was apprehended by russian forces but not before he blew up a would-be suicide bomber. the august 12 assassination of the most popular sufi sheikh in

dagestan was carried out by a female ethnic russian convert and her handler was ethnic russian mujahideen. he was the person who organized the october suicide bombing and follow grad. he was killed a week after that attack. when the december 29 attack occurred in bolam grad there for rep boards he had been the perpetrator of the suicide roaming. he is a russian convert who is part of the russian jamman. and there are several others. on january 19th there was a videotape on the dagestan web site up to mujahideen claiming to be from aunts onstar all soon

a group. they identified themselves as suleiman and abdul rahman so one of those names suleiman corresponds with the antiterrorist committee's claim of a suleiman. [inaudible] so this means that he was not involved which means the ethnic russian mujahideen are still out there and may still be heard from. in fact the dagestan has been publishing all sorts of recent material encouraging russians to

rise up and talking about the ethnic russian mujahideen. one of the key factors of the onstar all soon announce there were two elements and one has gotten a lot of press play. that's the videotape just mentioned. the day before there was a text announcement by the amir of this group and he threatened a chemical weapons attack and said an order was on the table of umar off if russian troops did and was dropped from the olympics. there would be attacks up to and including chemical attacks and that's a direct "matt. the other potential here is the potential of a foreign group joining with the caucasus emirate's and there's a tie-in with a chemical weapons attack. there are hundreds of mujahideen and there are hundreds of wood the replacements to cover the

attrition that occurs amongst the mujahideen fighting in syria. some of those people could have gotten their hands on sarah and or other chemical weapons and there have been reports of peace will trying to come into turkey with sarah and elements. there was a report published by a journalist who claim that the cia had been reporting to the obama administration that the rebels had chemical weapons. so there is a possibility that the rebels in fact do have weapons and there are two groups of north caucasus mujahideen fighting in syria. one is fighting under a misrata and the other is the jaish mujahideen and the amir of that group for former amir is the military leader of the northern front of the isi has in syria.

in fact he is now attending shura so he's a high-ranking figure. the possibility that al qaeda and isi has in the caucasus emirate the caucasus emirates would team up to somehow get chemical weapons into the north caucasus and sochi cannot be excluded. in terms of the threat -- how much time do i have? the network of the caucasus emirate subnetwork called the united -- are partially populated groups and they have a direct interest in taking part. this network is much weaker than the dagestan a network as are the others but the second-most powerful network and its possible they would assign several mujahideen to take part but i doubt they would lead a

major operation with the caveat that in february 2011 they carried out what looked like a practice run for an attack on sochi and they carried out an attack on the ski resort district a multipronged attack involving destroying the ski lift a truck bomb in front of the hotel killing four moscow tourists, from moscow and several small-scale attacks on police. virtually over. makkah 48 hours mostly within 24 hours period. in connection with the foreign element is on january 13 the russian national antiterrorism committee claimed they arrested five terrorists who were part of quote an international terrorist organization unquote in the capital. so there is a possibility but i wouldn't expect the operation to be led.

one detail on the foreign element and the possibility of a chemical attack is that a fatwa was issued about a week before the video of the mujahideen and that fatwa was requested by the ob wk mujahideen from the web site the sharia committee of one of the leading jihadi philosophers in the world that is abu mohammed. he is imprisoned but his web site and sharia committee is working and they issued a fatwa where they issued suicide bombings called for more especially in sochi and then asked the rep inside russia to make contact with the caucasus emirate and make sure that they coordinate with the caucasus emirate and carrying out any attacks. this could've been the on sulu group and the fact that they took videos in dagestan at the site was a signal that they have contacted the caucasus emirate.

and then finally in terms of operations other than attacking sochi, we can do that in questions. omar apparently is running the suicide -- and he is very close to them mujahideen and he may be running that female suicide bomber. in terms of tactics it's very like they would pick a target outside of sochi and attack moscow. they would attack a major attack in maha's collage. they could try to assassinate one of the leaders of the north caucasus and i expect there will be multiple teams. the dagestan me mujahideen tied to this dagestan me of billy out and perhaps the -- group simultaneously and all the

better the moral is concerned if one or two get through or just one well. whether we will see a catastrophic attack is unclear. finally the caucasus are good at using various tactics and they're very determinedetermined and very resourceful and in very innovative so we have to be ready for really almost anything. with that i will close. >> thanks, gordon. that's a very sobering presentation but it is a reality one of the other unique aspects of these games is i don't think we have mentioned joe kumar f. the leader of the caucasus emirate whether he is debt or alive he did direct the threaten

the games back in july effectively calling for those that are in his network and/or those that support the ideology and goals that he is supporting to effectively take off the handcuffs, civilians are fair game, everybody is fair game. and my own personal view is i'm not sure whether at this point it matters whether he is debt or alive for the sochi games themselves. unlike shamil sis, the most infamous and effective terrorists from the north caucasus over the last two decades who was killed in 2006 finally, he was very hands-on eventually carrying out operations. certainly for the future of the caucasus emirate at the sochi

games whether he is debt of our alive isn't going to matter. anyway thanks very much. it was a terrific talk. the floor is yours. >> thank you and thank you for the invitation. it's great to be here. my only regret is that sergey couldn't be with us. he has written a great report. i also want to pick up into cheerful presentations by my colleagues. to take us back to july 2007 and a reminder that was the point in which i think the games were awarded to sochi this is when vladimir putin looked on these games with great ambition. this would be a turning point for the north caucasus and i think he probably envisioned this would be the moment when the world came back to the north caucasus and discovered the

caucasus weren't as bad as the media portrayed it to be. this would be a kind of putin managed event of multiculturalism britain style and it would be kind of a local event which his vision of the russian caucasus was vindicated. unfortunately as we know that is not as it turned out to be in georgia i think fewer would have predicted in july 2007 given the games in sochi that a year later russia would be recognizing the independence of abkhazia. this waning of enthusiasm has obviously fallen and risen again a bit. i think there was again last year there was a bit more enthusiasm with the election of a new government in georgia.

the departure from the scene and this could also be an opportunity. i remember the georgian orin minister saying to me just about a month after they came into office maybe i'm being a bit idealistic but i would really like to get in my car and drive through the abkhazia and attend the sochi games. wouldn't that be great? it proved to be an illusion. the olympic team will be going to sochi but there will be no politicians going. they decided not to boycott which was the right decision. there is an opinion poll saying 66% of georgians are provably decisions to go to the games and 17% oppose it but it's clearly not going to be a kind of event of great coming together and reconciliation. i think --

had ambitions for this game and this would be a way that they could leverage these games to be put on the map. suddenly there would be if not end up causing a delegation that would somehow be inserted into the games and again i think putin's ambitions have really been scaled way down to the point where really the ambition is to get through these games unscathed and for people to be talking about skiing and skating rather than terrorism which frankly i think is what we all want to see but clearly the fact that we are here today still talking about terrorism and security threats a week before the games shows where the reality is. in that regard, i think putin has shared some of his more ambitious goals for the caucasus and concentrated on caucasus lot down.

the georgians are welcome to come but it's not a time for the georgians other than the things that are already going on in georgia and russian relations having to do with. and liberalization. up causing is left out of the picture. they are no longer able to cross the border in the north caucasus allowed to come in to sochi and there's there is now this 11-kilometer security zone south of the soul river which divides abkhazia which is basically an extra security zone inside a abkhazia. this has been portrayed in the media inaccurately as the moving of the border of the georgian foreign ministry complained

which naturally they would let this is not any territory that georgia has controlled for 20 years in soviet times and so this is just the abkhazia are being restricted. i corresponded with this and said we could make it across the border as pedestrians but we can't drive across. so you know we are not -- this is really going to be the lot down games and i think the objective clearly is there is going to be no terrorists within the greater sochi area and that no spectators are athletes suffer and maybe they will pull that off. but saying that possibly increases the risk of being in a different part of russia during the games. as for the circassian issue

again i think we have to be come a think has been a bit overblown i think again the previous georgian government tried to instrumental ways the circassian and recognizing a circassian genocide but i think that was treated with some skepticism by a lot of circassian sit-in like the fact that they were being used as part of the georgian russian agenda. there are many different athletes -- ethnic groups and the ones who really were from the sochi area were indigenous people way before the russians arrived, people like jakubik's. i think sergey had a figure of three or 4000. but most of those are descendents living in turkey or in jordan and i think all they really wanted was just to be

acknowledged that they existed and they are indigenous people from this area and that by coincidence the 150th anniversary of the defeat in 1964 happened on this for sais bought where the winter games are being held. so i think a little more sensitivity from the russian government would have gone a long way. unfortunately, the russian government and putin are not famed for this kind of sensitivity towards a ethnic minorities. as sergey reminds us in 2010 they sent the coup qube inquired to the olympics given that they call six --

but i wouldn't anticipate any kind of effort to disrupt the game and if there is a bill lets these are not circassian nationals who have a agenda. we have seen the islamicist targeting people with the national agenda in the north caucasus. we have seen a couple of assassinations of academics who have been trying to portray an islamist identity for the circassian's. and just finally a few extra words about the north caucasus. let me also mention another reason that abkhazia has become problematic which was mentioned. on september 9 the russian

counsel in abkhazia was assassinated, the main suspect was a chechen who i think was wounded in georgia and that's a whole different subplot again that's a reason for the russians to regard abkhazia is a problem and is a threat to these games rather than as an opportunity. just a couple of words about the north caucasus. i think gordon and i would probably agree that we have different perspectives on the north caucasus i'm sure. he notes the detail extremely well but i'm a bit with andy on the issue that it was a leftover chechen warlord who didn't happen to be killed when basically if the chechen insurgency was finally defeated

in the early 2000's. successfully rebranded himself as a kind of islamist leader but it's not clear to me and a very good web site and very good branding was in the russian interest to pay attention to the caucasus emirate but to me looking at it from a distance it it looks to me more like at best an umbrella organization in which the individual operatives have a very loose if any association. i think if you are at a pakistani islamist i think it is a left over chechen warlord. you don't feel much affinity to. but we should also remember that the north caucasus is very

volatile and danger -- danger is quite ways from sochi and what happens in dagestan has no relationship to what happens in sochi itself. what is happening in pakistan looks to be very unfortunate. it looks to be putin again having a tactical short-term response to the games, lots of reports of rounding up marginal young men, they kind of young man who could be sitting at home doing nothing or if they are rounded up and harassed and abused by the police could be going to the militants and in that gray zone. and i think the head was trying to draw those people into the fold but because of the tactical

response of the sochi games a lot of people are being rounded up and that is making the problem worse. so just to sum up this is not going to be unfortunately a moment of great caucasus reconciliation between georgians and russians. it's going to be a test the games where there will be a heavy security presence and where there's going to be all these races that will be done with many kalashnikovs being trained by russian security personnel. i think we can -- that is what we can hope for, is that we get through it without any incident. >> thank you tom for a thoughtful and comprehensive perspective and bringing a broader look at the caucuses and the political and security

challenges and threats. regarding anniversaries i would just add that the closing ceremonies which will be held on february 23 will be the 70th anniversary of stalin's deportation of the chechens in english so it's another not to give early happy anniversary plague -- take lace during the games in the fact that it takes place on the final day of the games, well i don't know. but let me turn now to my great colleague and friend juan zarate and many of the things that i was negligent in about my introduction this morning is that juan is also the author of the recently published book entitled treasury is war, the unleashing of a new era of

financial were fair. one, the floor is yours. >> thank you andy. it's really an honor to be part of this panel. the advantage of a panel is i can write the wake -- a digestible compendium of key analysis but also a great source of data points if you look through the document. there is great research of some interesting points. what i thought i would do is as opposed to rehash what the experts have to say is to give you a sense of how the u.s. may be proceeding as it is perceiving the threats from the game. i had the advantage of being the government roll it the white house at least for the games in the beijing olympics to coordinate u.s. security and

potential response to threats. i think it's fair to say not from an alarmist and point but simply from an objective standpoint given certainly everythineverythin g we have heard and everything we know that these are the most dangerous olympic games since 9/11 given both the threat environment and given all of the opportunities that the various groups that gordon laid out half in terms of the games. let me lay out how the u.s. might do this and why i suggest the most dangerous context for the olympic games since 9/11. in the first instance the u.s. used the terrorist threat as serious and that is defined by the intent of the groups it could threaten against, the capability of those groups and the opportunity. let me go through that just

simply and quickly because it's often how the intelligence community and policy community within the u.s. government thinks about think categorizes threats and certainly in this context -- context makes clear why the u.s. is concerned with the threats. first you have the declared intent of groups to disrupt the own fix. it's obvious and it's clear it's coming from the seniormost leadership of the various groups that caucasus emirate's in particular the more off. significantly it's important to july 201414 statement is not just a call for attacks on the games and massive disruption but also the lifting of the moratorium on attacks on civilian targets, which is in essence a call to arms and opening of the targets around the sochi olympics. not just the venues but the transportation hubs and other venues that are potentially

vulnerable and the sides of soft targets. in terms of capabilities we have obviously seen over the last decade plus the ability of overrated groups to hit not just in the caucuses but the russian heartland with not just efficiency but with great devastation. we saw this in buldo grad -- volgograd and importantly in the description that gordon gave and certainly to reporters report is that you have these groups do not only are motivated and have intent but have practiced the capabilities and has mastered a variety of factors to attack. that is to say these are groups that don't just specialize in one type of attack. these are groups that can plan a variety of ways to attack both secured sites and unsecured sites. you have seen this with senior suicide homers and you have seen

it with coordinated attacks. you have seen it with truck bombs in bus bombs. you have seen it with the use of multiple militants in targeted assaults and you have seen their willingness and ability over the course of the last decade to attack all sorts of venues that are vulnerable, transportation hubs in the worse you have seen the metro attacks in the rail attacks. you have seen attacks on schools, security sites, police stations, hospitals. so these are groups that again not only have the intent of the demonstrated capability to attack from a variety of vectors and are well practiced in many ways in how to do this. finally the opportunity obviously as jeffrey laid out, the olympics is centerstage obviously for world attention. you have the media there and you have got all of the world watching and hopefully as tom

said watching for the right reasons, watching success on the ice and the slopes but certainly the terrorists understand not just the significance of the games that the significance of the games to russian putin and the personalization of the game game -- games itself in some ways presents a red flag, and attractivattractiv eness for these groups to demonstrate their ability to actually attack and embarrass putin and the russians in a very important way. again, to take you back to the july 2013 statement were not only he called for attacks on the sochi games and not only lifted the moratorium on attacking targets but also called for a new phase in the war for liberation of the caucasus and the establishment of an islamic emirate. what's interesting there and perhaps most interesting to me from the point of view of an opportunity and the broader

threat for my variety of terrorist groups not just the caucuses but perhaps from central asian groups like ij you or returning fighters from the syrian conflict or even foreign fighters is the fact that this may be a moment of convergence of not just a rejuvenation of the fight and an accelerated terrorist campaign from some of these groups under the banner of the caucasus emirate but also may be a rejuvenation of local jihadi narrative around the attacks against russia as the nooni or amfar anomie in the global jihadi narrative. by that i mean not only is chess champ and dagestan and abkhazia is seen in ayman l. zawahiri reference to the noble and heroic persistence of the fight

in chechnya but the russians and their support of assad and in the backing of what is viewed by the global jihadi groups as a backing of the slaughter of sunni muslims has really put itself back into the heart of the global jihadi narrative as a key potential target and force to hit. that may not manifest itself in sochi but it certainly will manifest itself in the future, and i think that is an important point to note. i think in the minds likely of the groups operating out of the caucasus, this is the moment of opportunity to embarrass the russians but it also may be an opportunity for the global jihadi narrative to take advantage of sochi and take advantage of what may be a moment of rejuvenation. and lastly the environment

itself presents opportunity so it's not just the potential to attack in sochi, to launch attacks or to provide logistical support out of abkhazia and the report by the waylays out recent instances of terrorist cachet's captured in abkhazia, explosive device weaponry supplies and so the environments themselves provide opportunity logistically and most important perception of the risk and threat to the games is most significasignifica nt. that is to say the terrorists need not not necessarily attacked successfully a venue in sochi itself create the russians are certainly applying brute force of an security around the venues but if they can create a sense of instability and insecurity by attacking in volgograd, attacking in moscow, attacking in the near environment it begins to change

the perception of the games. it begins to start a debate including in the u.s. government as to how to secure the u.s. athletes, participants, family members, sponsors and citizens who are visiting. two other key points of concern for the u.s. government that i think accelerated over the last couple of weeks. one is a continued lack of visibility into what the russians are seeing and doing in terms of the actual terrorist threats or threads that they are following and the disruptions that are underway. there's not ashton russians are following real threats. we have seen the reports of the black widows that may have been overblown a bit but it demonstrates that there are real concerns about particular terrorist operatives and threads and it's clear as well that the russian forces have been engaged in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations

knocking down doors and engaged in firefights particularly in pakistan to be as distracted as possible. the death, the reported death may be part of it and it's not clear that is correct to zandi indicated. a lot of concern includes the u.s. government because it creates a blind spot for the potential threats to u.s. interests at the site. so i would say nothing publicly suggests direct threats to the u.s. or the u.s. athletes but they are simply part of the environment and the concern over this is manifested in simple signals. you have seen for example the advisory for u.s. athletes not to wear identifying clothing outside of secured venues. that's a demonstration of concern the u.s. government has that there may be vulnerabilities. finally there is a concern about

a contingency plan. every country that goes through security planning around the olympics wants to demonstrate not only that they can put on a successful game but they want to demonstrate their security sources are professional and they can do it on their own terms. this is in many ways a point of nationalist pride. often you won't get as much cooperation and visibility regardless of the ally. even in london it wasn't sort of complete and open visibility. every country manages security of an event like this on their own terms. but i do think there is an important set of concerns about how the u.s. government might plan for a worst-case scenario and for example how one thinks about potential evacuations in the event of a catastrophic attack or in a worst-case scenario. again nothing suggest that is what happened but in security planning you have to plan for the worst. i would say bringing into this

the u.s. political environment interested only in a post-benghazi world i think there's a question as to whether or not the u.s. government is proceeding the threat appropriately, pre-positioning assets the right way and planning for again worst-case scenario. much of the criticism in the post-benghazi review. and so that is a way of thinking about u.s. concerns and let me not belabor this but let me just reference three broader points that i think are important to note. one is a matter of scheduling. gordon said it would be helpful if we knew the publisher but keep in mind we have not just the let the games in february but the paralympic games in march. so we have a two-month window here of major visibility and potential vulnerability in sochi where i would say that terrorist

groups likely don't mind too much is there attacked planning moves into march and they were able to effectuate a significant attack that still bears his putin. it may not need when nbc has 24/7 coverage but the coverage of the paralympic games is quite widespread. you remember how successful that was in the london context, how popular it was so you can imagine again the terrorists perhaps if they don't have an opening opportunity that is ripe in february inking that the opportunities might arise in march. so keep in mind this is a longer window than one would imagine. second, this is actually a moment of great opportunity of cooperation between the u.s. and russia. it's always a moment of attention of cooperation around multinational security offense where information-sharing and

cooperation can be enhanced. you have seen is from the u.s. government trying to push this with the offering of moore at the ie agents and security personnel from state diplomatic security on the ground. the offering of new technology from the department of defense the offering of more coordination in terms of planning on the ground. it's not clear to me that the russians have taken full advantage of this and they aren't but it is an important note that this is a moment of opportunity in relationship between the u.s. and russia because there is a coincidence of interest which is having safe successful games in ensuring the terrorist don't succeed in disrupting them. finally, just to reiterate the point and it's an unfortunate reality that the perception of insecurity in many ways does perhaps not just as much damage materially but psychologically to the games to the extent that this is the games perceived to

be locked down because of security or where any time a terrorist group says boo and the russians who won or the u.s. security officials have to respond that unfortunately is a success for these groups and again keeping in mind that sochi may not be the end of the story for these groups. in many ways for the groups in the caucasus and the local jihadi networks, this may be the beginning of a new chapter. so viewing it that way i think is a way of viewing the threat differently and explains why i said at the start this may be the most dangerous olympic games we have seen post-9/11. thank you. 9/11. >> that was an insightful presentation. i would like to make a couple of comments. one that builds directly on the points that you made in the last

one. to me, this sochi games, looking at the protagonists, the terrorist groups, not only russian-based juan intimated, the image of the american narrative high noon at the corale or the sort of ultimate for the terrorists i would suggest this target, and not necessarily in sochi itself but throughout the russian federation the efforts to spoil the games some house of this is the holy grail of juicy targets for the russian based terrorists

groups. and just to amplify on the very insightful remarks that jeffrey made, for vladimir putin, his political career, he emerged virtually from aware when he was named prime minister in 1999. his political career is a national political figure in russia skyrocketed on the perceived success in the beginning of the second chechnya or after they made the incursions' in pakistan after the fall of 1999. putin has said on many occasions that he sees himself actually having a special role, almost a messy role for him to stabilize the caucusus, so why all of the world's attention is on this region, anything that would

further tarnished that narrative of his i think is very significant. and i think the point that gordon was making is that this could be a very significant inflection point for mr. putin himself because he has so much riding on the success on these games. one point and this is at csis, we believe in appropriately referencing the source of insight. as a point i want to make that jeff made a couple weeks ago at a press conference that well, okay, we know that these are locked down games and putin has guaranteed security. of course nobody can guarantee the security of anything in reality, but i think the real

point is that any security system is only as strong as its weakest link, and in this case, the deep corruption of russia, including security forces, police and others is a real problem. it's been a real problem that's facilitated successful terrorist attacks in the past, and possibly successful terrorist attacks in the future. finally, i have an inquiry from foreign affairs in the week is their something that hasn't really been covered about the sochi games and that led me to think with all of the trees that have been filled and commentary about the sochi games, my question was okay this is my

title, you can't use it. what if you had an olympics and nobody came? jeff mentioned the attendance issue and there's 70% of the tickets have been sold, which of course may or may not be true. whatever amount of tickets had actually been sold, or those tickets really going to be used? obviously the interest of the international community in attending the games has been dramatically reduced. i think there have been serious reservations on the part of many russians citizens themselves. now, when i raised this in our session with the opposition figure that jeff kringen for vladimir here on monday he said that isn't going to be a problem because look, the russian

authorities are very effective in busing people in for the rallies or e elections to vote chicago style many times and the like. nevertheless though, i think there should be some concern about -- it would look rather embarrassing if international cameras are on the stand and it doesn't appear that -- movie attendance is really a problem. and just tied to that, let's not forget the possibility of well, people of course talked about the lgbt community making some kind of a demonstration or a whole set of possible actors that have reasons for making some kind of using the podium of the games to use a demonstration in some way, shape or form. but the one thing that struck me, i was recalling the ultimate

fighting competition that was held at the olympics stadium in doors, large venue in moscow a couple years ago and put in -- putin. a russian did someone and he used that to make some russian remarks to the crowd of thousands and he was booed and hissed very, very embarrassing. so, something of that nature could transpire also. and like all of my colleagues of course we hope that none of these threats and challenges that we have outlined here in our opening remarks will come to transpire, but i will be watching these games with a special-interest. and let me also -- i want to acknowledge sergei for the work

that he has done and i'm sorry he's not able to be with us today. i also want to take the opportunity to thank the carnegie corporation of new york that supported the fellowship of sergei here and also the publication of the report. so, let me now open up the floor to questions and comments. if i may, i would like to turn over to an old friend here who has arrived in washington in of late summer of last year. that is the esteemed ambassador to georgia. >> for the others, please identify yourself briefly for us. >> thank you distinguished panel

georgia holds a unique angle on russia generally. as the new government which came to power months ago and decided to review its policy towards russia to slightly improve the relationship with russia to mitigate the risks what has happened. and they've decided to change the policies of the old government and during the games not to boycott them. so very small, but still. and also the georgian government offered the russian government cooperation on security. so far we haven't received any response from russia, but nonetheless, we indicated to signal to them that we are in

favor of the conduct o the games because if anything bad happens it is in nobody's interest except for those doing that. especially for georgia who is the closest to the foreign country that enables the site, immediate neighbors of the games, and as we all know the russians especially the government who fails to prevent from happening this undesirable thing to try to find scapegoats elsewhere. sometimes, many times russia would by doing so would point at georgia, and georgia once these games to go peacefully. i would agree with andy.

i don't remember any olympic games, summer or winter games we were not talking about which of the national teams would get how many medals. this time we talk about whether or not they will be peaceful so this is the first-ever instance we are very much concerned about the safety of the games. and i gather from this panel the possibility of a terrorist attack is there and is quite likely. so, my question would be to the panel in case anything of this kind happens in russia, what this would mean for putin and their representation of russia as a safe place to hold this

kind of event because down the road we also -- and we have the world cup games. what kind of implication this kind of an undesirable event have? paralymics. >> paralymics, ambassador. but me express my hope that georgia brings home some gold. what we also know that we are over time to moderate and showing of late the panel is prepared to be here until 10:45 and obviously you have not been held hostage. let me turn now to jeff and juan to make a brief comment to the investor's question. >> the point that the ambassador made to the folks of the

olympics on the security rather than the medal count is right and quite striking. there have been terrorist attacks in olympics in the past. in munich in 1992 and most notably in atlanta in '96. what was different about those is that in the aftermath of them had nobody used them to call into question the legitimacy of the political system, the country holding the olympics. because so much of the russian government's, and putin's procedure is tied up in these olympics. it sends a very negative signal internationally and also within the country that could have i think long-running political fallout. you mentioned also the g20 and the world cup. i think regardless if there is a successful attack on the olympics or not, complications that we have already seen that run up to the games i'm sure is

treating heartburn in the headquarters when they think about having to do an event that is even larger than the olympics spread across the entire country if you have security challenges with regard to single venues, imagine that now multiplied by multiple times across the country for all the different places you could be holding the world cup. so i think it is to be a problem that we could see come up again and again as russia continues to hold these international events in the years to come. a cynic would depend on the nature of the event of course and so the scope what matter. and i think also the reaction on how the russians responded. whether or not the what is viewed as competent and helpful because i think it's, as jeffrey , atlanta happened but the games didn't collapse or the

sense that the u.s. was in the appropriate venue for the future major international event. what a be the type of scope and real vulnerability is that really do colin to material questions russia's ability to hold these kind of defense. and i think we are all hoping and praying that things go very well. but if something were to happen that would happen immediately. >> line with the bbc and i wonder if you can tell me what you think the most serious number one threat and also with the u.s. is doing about that. >> in terms of likelihood probably suicide bombings, but i wouldn't think the threat to undertake a chemical attack. that could have been psychological terror. that may have been the purpose.

on the other hand, who knows. >> with respect to the u.s. and what they do, the u.s. intelligence community and law enforcement try to understand any particular threat other than the broader environment which they understand very well, but the particular threat which is why the question of disability -- visible but he becomes important. they are trying to alter any cooperation and the u.s. is preparing contingency plans, so that is what you do in an environment like this. but at the end of the day coming you are be holding on the host governments willing to cooperate, and their effectiveness in preparing for the event and any eventuality. >> just a brief comment. i want to highlight of the syria aspect in the chemical weapons issue as gordon has talked about. if you go back to assad's

decision to give up his chemical weapons, which undoubtedly in my mind, he was basically given an ultimatum by mr. putin and the russians that either you do this or we will no longer be able to support you in any way, shape or form. we can talk about that more. i think the question is to which actually assad and the syrian forces were and are able to control an have effective control over their chemical weapons arsenal which was disbursed in 40 plus places around the country. that has worried me for a long time. let's go to this side. yes. >> alisa with eir magazine. after the bombings at the end of september, the russian foreign ministry issued a statement that said that these attacks were very much like what's happened

in the united states and libya and syria and they went as far as to say all of these attacks were coming from the same quarters. second, saying this is -- these are -- this is a global issue. it didn't just happen and volgograd. what better than hosting a in a place close to chechnya and these different conflicts, but they are being held there. and my question is to further underscore the issue of global terrorism and not just the attack on sochi, if you remember in the summer at the height of the syrian crisis, crest from saudi arabia held a meeting with putin and said if you don't back off your support of assad we cannot guarantee they will not attack sochi and he said we've finance them. so, for the united states to

have all of this discussion about security and the corruption of putin, for the united states to continue to call saudi arabia and ally i think is just a little bit hypocritical. so my question -- my direct question is how we raise the level of collaboration between the united states and russia and have a conversation about the saudis and other terrorism because if something happens in sochi, that isn't russia's problem, that's our problem as well. thanks. >> i am not sure that saudi arabia said that. there is no stenogram of that meeting so i have my doubts. i think that was put out by a iranian source. the other thing to keep in mind i think is when discussing, you can pretty much leaves out the word chechnya.

this is now the worldwide cooperation, and the dagestanis are leading the charge since 2010. that doesn't mean it's irrelevant. i agree with what was said earlier but we don't have time to go into that. the third point is it is part of a global jihadis movement. it's not an affiliate of al qaeda but that doesn't mean it doesn't share the goals and the ideologies. i will just leave it there. a cynic it's certainly a strategic opportunity for russia to reinforce its message with respect to what's happening in syria, so there is no question that is the potential here and in some ways as i said earlier it is a moment of potential cooperation but in the u.s. and russia, whether it is on who we is fueling this and what is behind it, etc., but there is a narrative ideological command to a certain extent, connectivity

between what happens in the caucasus and what happens in syria because that is how the group's view it and for me this is an interesting moment of understanding sochi and what's happened in the caucuses and -- caucusus and syria becomes the resurrection of the al qaeda driven moment from the sunni violent. that doesn't mean that assad should stay. we have to policy goals in syria and not just one. >> two quick comments on this. one, let's remember the boston marathon bombing, the tsarnaev brothers. this was an intelligence failure that took place on the united states territory. but also highlighted a two things. one, it was a failure in the

u.s. russian collaboration, security cooperation. number three, i think it emphasized to the united states intelligence community and the security community and the importance of tracking the caucusus as a seedbed for the global terrorism. next question comment. we are running out of time. you had your hand up earlier. >> i am a professor at george mason and george washington on terrorism and the question, you kind of stole my thunder and it's also patriot's day which is when the marathon bombing was for us, too. but with all of this talk concerning the terrorist attacks and potential terrorist attacks and the e-mail that was sent out to the kennedys and --

committees, haven't the terrorists pretty much already won by suppressing the attendance were the popularity's of the olympics coming into the question i have is when do they lose all the international prestige because of this and he put his name on this olympics and how does that translate internationally to the prestige and the credibility when it comes to some of these other events and negotiating power on the united states like with snowden or chinese or whatever on the international realm. >> great question. the other point in the previous question is the united states have wanted to cross with russians that they have not been very enthusiastic about it. that is an issue. where is the red line for mr. putin, jeff? >> i don't know.

i don't know if we can say if x then y. we are going to have to wait and see what happens. the games can surpass expectations and go off without any terrorist attacks occurring and they could do very well. i want to emphasize again, that because so much of the audience that putin is focusing on, the performance of the athletes is going to matter in terms of how they are perceived in the narrative that he is -- putin is trying to get across to his own constituency. on the international perspective, i don't know. i would be curious to hear juan's thoughts on this. we already know that this is a problem for russia and there hasn't been as much cooperation as we would have liked on the counterterrorism issue, but there are still all of these other areas and whether it is

syria or iran or china or anything else. where we are kind of condemned to work together and i think that's not going to change regardless of what does or doesn't happen at the olympics. >> [inaudible] >> this may be very easy but sad question and that is on the global showcase, which is the olympics based on the personification of the olympics and as the panel has so well described. has any panelist imagined a terrorist group not making an attempt how that could be thwarted in its early stages but can anyone imagine that they would ignore this opportunity? >> we will start with juan. >> they haven't ignored the opportunity and they will take advantage. the one thing to keep in mind

with these types of groups is they will take a vintage of the opportunity and they will strike when they are ready. and so, they have been thinking about this for a while and this is why i raised the march window because it may not be that it comes at the second week of february. it may be down the road. >> concluding remarks, please. >> are they going to take the opportunity against itself targets hundreds of thousands of miles? >> on the previous question, i think that they are already trying to take the tax on going. the timing may be different. on the previous question they are going for something bigger. unless the stadiums are completely empty, then they can say that's a victory.

but they are going for something bigger. they are very much like umar and the dagestanis and give a big bang so to speak not to use a pun but i think that's what you're going for. >> i would agree with the previous commentators. this is a golden opportunity for the insurgents to make a point to the media as well as everybody in russia that is focusing on what happens in sochi. they've already made an attempt both successful and unsuccessful and i would be completely -- they are continuing to make the preparation, yes i think those attempts will continue. >> my answer is yes, of course. i would conclude by saying that we have emphasized what mr. putin has riding on these games more in the negatives, but

if there isn't a successful terrorist attack in some way she bore for me even though there's already been significant kind of disturbance because of what's happened and what has been said, then this would be looked at as some sort of defeat for those that have announced that these games are a target and having said that, that threat isn't going to go away anytime soon because unfortunately, the sources that are generating those that are inspired to make these kind of the attacks isn't going away anytime soon. let me thank juan, gordon, jeff, for attending in your excellent questions. may we not have a reason to have a press conference or a meeting

at csis

>> terry donavan talked about the housing authority in washington, d.c. and his remarks are 25 minutes. >> glenda, thank you so much for an incredbly introduction. i want to say thank you for your tribute to earnie. i am joined by your former and incoming president on their new roles and i want to acknowledge that two great friends are