'80s and their were those who protested the regime. he always protected the regime. he studied navigation and, of course, in the soviet union have to study the history of the commonest party and the world socialist movement and all those other fun subjects, and he would always get b. .. was a very interesting boy. and every bit of humanity he showed was considered at the time as a bad soviet. he was a bad communist. he was often put in aviation school always detained for a horrible crime as wearing his thick hats backwards. you know, like will smith fresh

prince of bell air? for that he would get five day of detention. and what i found in a letter and interview that when the war was raging on and he was told russian airplanes were not great construction. you know it this isn't a great construction. it is efficient. so those planes were not great construction and not really good to protect the pilot. they were efficient in fighting the nazis. so his head was always sticking out from this cock pit so he invented a helmet and it was the soldier's hard hat and then the pilot had above it. so it protected them.

my mother didn't keep the letters, but if i didn't have enough courage, was leonid a trader or not, i would never find out long after leonid was dead, his bitalion continued to wear this kind of -- battalion -- wore this helmet to the end of the car. i discovered he wasn't a trader and all of it was political and he didn't do anything wrong but wasn't a good soviet and therefore we face that. and also one of the problems i think that was important for me is to discover none of it was about leonid. it was all about nikita khrushchev. as imperfect as he was he said i

am not luck lastering the fact he was a loyal lieutenant but he deannounced stalin and allowed the country to move a bit forward as much as it could. that was a very important process because it brought us to where we are now which is nowhere. but we tried. and khrushchev was declared a mentor and predecessor. it was an important moment in soviet history when it tried to divert from its authoritarian and open up the borders. so it is all about him because he took down that grade idea that power is always right.

power could be wrong. i could be wrong he said. and that was important for the soviets to hear and the russians to here. and i think putin is saying, no, no, that is wrong. power can't be wrong. or it is that power who said it could be wrong that khrushchev in '56 denouncing stalin and in '54 giving kiev to ukraine and look at it now. suddenly after of the things we russians know we say oh, okay. i want to conclude with a small story that i use in a book and it is sad. but an an dote which is sad but funny. when khrushchev was retired and ousted in 1964 for various

reasons and reforms that were not consistent with each other but i think with the idea he tried to democratize here breakdown into smaller pieces the great communist story that joseph stalin created. and he didn't die by the way. he was ousted in '64 and his last words were to those who kicked him out of the kremlin the greatei am the greatest thi have done but today i am ousted from voting. he came back from the decision where he was decided not to be the soviet premier anymore. dot

... ... >> we don't really have this kind f extra men of -- bench of former lead rester, or certainly didn't have add the time. so khrushchev was the first one. so mother cried x she was very nervous. khrushchev did not cry, and hene said to her, that's okay, i'm going to be a normal person nowr which, you know, in the soviet p system what it is to be a normao person. b one of the reasons putin is not leaving, because he doesn't knoo how to be a normal person after that great power. i'm going to be a normal person

now. russia is like a tub full of dough. you push it all down to the bottom, make a dent in it, you p pull it out, and right in front of your eyes, once again is a tub full of dough. thank you. [applause] o >> every weekend, book tv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books on c-span2. keep watching for more television for serious readers. >> up next, karen dawisha, author of "putin's kleptocracy." she talks about vladimir putin ice rise -- putin's rise to

power in russia. professor dawisha spoke about her book at the woodrow wilson center in washington d.c. >> welcome. we are, indeed, in for a treat today, and if you haven't got enough discussion on putin, i think we're going to hopefully satisfy your curiosity today. it is our great pleasure to have karen dawisha here to talk about "putin's can kleptocracy," and you should add that the books are on sale as well. karen is professor of political science and director of the center for russian and post-soviet studies at miami university in ohio. she is a former wilson center public policy scholar as well as a former guest scholar at brookings. she has taught at many universities including a long stint in the area of the university of maryland.

the author of several books, but this one rises to the top the list, and she received her ph.d. from the london school of economics. karen will be followed by professor elizabeth wood for a commentary on her presentation. professor wood is the professor of russian and soviet history at mitu and elizabeth also will be joining us in january as a fellow here. she is the or author of two books including her most recent book, "performing justice: agitation trials in early soviet russia." and her current work, which she will be pursuing here at the center, is also on vladimir putin and the performance of power in russia today. so with that, i turn the floor over to aaron. over to karen. >> i'm going to stand. >> thank you, will, and thank you very much to the kennon

institute and to the wilson center both of whom hosted me when i was here, and i would also like to give a special thanks to the staff in the library who were really terrific in supporting this research. well, we are in a very interesting period. for u.s./russian relations or for european/russian relations. here we have the most serious crisis since the cold war in which one country expanded its territory at the expense of another, and the united states responded quite unusually by putting sanctions against financial holdings of named individuals close to a certain russian politician. this doesn't happen every day. we very quickly got accustomed to the idea of sanctions, but

normally -- if we could use that word, normally -- there should have been some movement of the sixth fleet, there should have been some military-to-military response, there should have been more early nato actions. and we need to think about why is it that they responded with targeted sanctions against individuals and their financial holdings. the reason i think is because these sanctions represented a public admission by the united states government of what it had known or more over a decade -- known for over a decade, that putin has built a system based on massive predation not seen in russia since the czars. transparency international estimates $300 billion are paid every year in corruption. capital flight, according to official russian central bank

figures since 2005, have been $335 billion. and credit suisse last year, in a very important study not picked up sufficiently in the west, credit suisse -- an organization that is not exactly devoted to the plight of the poor around the world -- issued a report on wealth in russia. and in that report it stated that russia now has the highest income inequality of any country in the world. 110 billionaires control 35% of the entire wealth of very well thu country. wealthy country. and before we say, yes, but gdp per capita has been increasing and all russians are doing better than they used to, they state that the median wealth

many russia, the median, in other words, 50% are richer, 50% are poorer, the median wealth in russia is now only $871. it is the low itself median wealth figure of any bric country, a country that is a net exporter of energy, has a rower median wealth -- lower median wealth than india. it also now scores below knew jeer. >> -- nigeria in its ability to control corruption and, obviously, its willingness to control corruption. so what does mean about what we canning say about the putin system -- we can say about the putin system? the putin system national eyeses the risk and privatizes the reward to loyal u.s.es. the pattern we see now of the redistribution to the inner core has been in place since the beginning. this is not a system in which robber barons create the

industrial basis of a robust, emerging capitalist economy. this is a system in which barons are robbed by value-detracting, state-rating elites whose sole position is determined by their relationship to the current president. value detraction is an extremely important part of picture. part of this picture. most of academic world, including myself, have spent the last 20 years focusing on democracy in russia, on democracy building, on democracy sustaining, on democracy failing. but not on authoritarianism succeeding. and the basic conclusion that i came to in this book is that russia is not a system under putin of accidental autocrats. it is a system that was created with a purpose by intelligent

design from the very beginning of the putin regime. i started out this project with the idea of finding the authoritarian moment. that was the governing idea of this book. when did they decide to do what they clearly have done? so i thought, 2008. 2004? i went back to 2000 and realized after looking at mainly at elections, that's what i was interested in at the time, that even the 2000 election was fraudulent. putin would not have won in the first round without massive fraud. that means that from the very beginning the putin project was not a project that was dependent upon trying to win. it was all about guaranteeing the win.

pavlovksi who we all know was an extremely important member of the pr team around putin in 2000 and who has fallen out with the kremlin and vice vice versa, hes stated and i agree with this statement that putin was part of a very, quote: a very extensive but politically invisible layer of people who after the end of the 1980s were looking for a relaunch in connection with the collapse of the soviet union. the argument of the book is that this group failed in 1991, but they succeeded in 2000. it's the same group. ideologically. not everyone, but ideologically. this group was seeking also to help themselves. they were kgb officers very interested in economic liberalism but with political control. and primarily liberalism for

them. the book statements that the whole story begins in the 1980s. seeing the collapse of communist rule in eastern europe after 1989 and the loss of the ruling status of communist parties there, the communist party of the soviet union authorized the kgb -- and there are documents that are quoted in the book -- to move money out of the soviet union. realizing that if the cpsu lost its ruling status, in other words, access to the state budget without limit, they would need money to live in a multiparty system. something that the polish, east german and hungarian parties hadn't thought about. money started to flood. and it flooded in such amounts

that they virtually bankrupt the gorbachev regime, first, and then when yeltsin failed to find the communist gold, they also significantly handicapped the ability of the yeltsin regime to succeed. what's interesting was this was cpsu money safeguarded by the kgb. but when yeltsin outlawed the cpsu, who did the money belong to? well, it belonged to whoever knew what the bank account number was. and this started the scramble for offshore can accounts -- offshore accounts. cole international was hired, they couldn't find the money. hired by guydar and yeltsin, they couldn't find the money, and it was a very interesting episode. so the core of the book starts in 1991, and i regard it as the

most conservative analysis possible based on extensive interviews of putin's involvement in illicit activities in the '30s -- '90s, his efforts to suppress legal cases that were started against him and the rise to power of the group around hum. i interviewed russian, european, american journalists, activists and many government officials, but i only used those documents that were publicly available. the reason that i did this is that there's quite a number -- many, many books -- on putin that assure us of their sources. what i'm trying to establish is that it's there. what we know about this episode, it's there in the written source material. we just need to do the work of discussing it, of researching

it, bringing it to light. and the book is dedicated to free russian journalism because it was russian journalists who followed this story, first and foremost. and they wrote this story when there was free journalism. they covered it extensively. they were on putin's tail from the very beginning. they couldn't write this now. but they were writing it in the 1990s. is i believe the account -- so i believe the account provides a baseline of accusations and information known and discussed in the 1990s, and its contemporary import. you won't find in the book any repetition of, you know, hot rumors that we all hear about the participation of a certain high russian government officials in the bunga-bunga

parties of berlusconi. you won't find anything about a penchant for taking baths for their natural viagra effect in a bloody velvet drawn from siberian reindeers. it's not in the book. but there's a lot in the book. [laughter] trust me, there's enough. so the book contains major sections on the food scandal in st. petersburg in the early '90s, on putin's involvement in the control and emergence of the gambling i have in st. petersburg -- industry in st. petersburg, putin's involvement as a member of the board of the st. petersburg real estate holding company, a company that was registered in germany and that was investigated by

interpol and bnd for its involvement in the laundering of money from the cali cartel. his giving of a monopoly position to a gang in the petersburg fuel company, his involvement in creating and using source -- money from the mayor's contingency fund through a company called 20th trust which led to a criminal case, number 144128. and the unauthorized use of funds from the mayor's contingency fund in getting a apartment for himself in st. petersburg which led to a criminal case, 18-238278-95. what i'm doing just by mentioning these numbers is to say there is the data. there is the data.

it's presented in the book, but there is a lot more. and i'm going spend the rest of my time talking about only four things; two people, a place and a document. the two people, vladimir smirnoff and victor section olotov, two people that are not in the public eye that much. vladimir smirnoff. smirnoff is regarded by russian opposition figures as one of the cutouts between the mayor's office and putin's committee in the 1990s and the mafia gang. smart guy, he's trained as a physicist, but nevertheless, he was -- he is said to have been the person who was involved. in the early 1990s, there was a food crisis in st. petersburg, and the very first thing that putin got himself involved in

was giving licenses to various companies, some of whom only were established weeks before the contract was awarded. one of them was headed by vladimir smirnoff. when the st. petersburg legislature investigated these contracts in which the minimum amount that went missing was $122 million but the total number, total amount of contracts awarded was a billion dollars, but they had access to the documents governing $122 million. their conclusion was that the committee on foreign economic relations, putin's committee, distributed contracts in the interests of licensees and not the city. this is a quote from the documents, and that vladimir putin should be removed from his post and the case should be sent

to the prosecutors. the prosecutors sought to pursue this case, but it was closed down. vladimir smirnoff should have been cast to the curb, but was he? no. he then became, in 1996, the person listed as the leader of the cooperate i -- cooperative. he's listed as the leader. smirnoff. and most people focus on this gated community that they established. without asking the much more important question, why did they set it up as a cooperative? there's private property. just get the property, establish your -- build your cot ams next to each other and have, you know, saunas in each other's saunas. they were doing this all over russia at the time.

why did they establish a cooperative using the gorbachev cooperative laws? because, in my opinion, they were able to establish a cooperative bank account number. and according to the gorbachev laws, all for one and one for all under the cooperative arrangements. so bank account number, you said i couldn't -- we didn't know the number. here it is. 180461008. it was established, it's let'sed in the documents -- it's listed in the documents, and all those people whose names we know as being close to putin from the very beginning had access according to the law, it's very important under putin, to a joint bank account from 1996 onward. so you would have thought that smirnoff would settle down. i mean, he's in with the big guys. you would have thought putin would settle down too. but they went on to be on the

board, and in smirnoff's case to direct spag, the st. petersburg real estate holding company. and spag was also, also on the spag board was the head of -- [inaudible] spag was investigated by the bnd for laundering cali cartel money and, of course, russian mafia money too. but bnd wasn't looking at that time for russian mafia money. they were looking for cali cartel money, and that's how they found it. so there were bnd raids and arrests, and then gerhard schroeder came to power, and the case against putin was laid to rest. however, the u.s. government leaked documents, well, leaked results of their own investigation in which they said that there was a sheaf of intelligence reports linking

putin to spag and as a result of that, they succeeded in getting russia placed on an international money landererring lust. 2000. all right, smirnoff is certainly rich enough by now, so why doesn't he go abroad and live out his life? no, putin goes to moscow in '96, he becomes president in 2000, and he appoints smirnoff as head of tenex, responsible for up to 50% of the world's trade in nuclear materials. it was also the u.s. partner of, in megatons to megawatts, and it received $3.5 billion in u.s. aid. it provided nuclear materials for the bashir reactor in iran.

serious stuff. so when we talk about, you know, putin being concerned about iran's nuclear potential, well, i mean, he's having fun with this guy. this guy's the lead leader of the cooperative, so he should be concerned, but he certainly could control it. that's smirnoff. zolotov, the other person. when putin became the deputy mayor of st. petersburg, of course, deputy mayors in all cities have security. and putin, of all people, could rely on his friends in the former kgb to help provide security. so why was it, why is it that he chose to hire a private firm to provide security? that firm was baltic escort, still exists today. and the head of, the two people

who were head of baltic escort were victor zolotov and roman -- [inaudible] zolotov was regarded by st. petersburg journalists as the person who provided the muscle to protect the black cash that made the world turn in st. petersburg. and the, particularly when gambling was controlled and brought legally, brought into the legal sphere that zolotov and baltic escort controlled access and took the tribute. ..

the horrible scene in the last inauguration of this strikeout of black cars going through moscow, in moscow that had been emptied for the new duration. all those cars going through not.com it was a brilliant day, and empty moscow, basically giving the message so was, what

we can this regime without you. it's an interesting story about the worth of. zola tossed came to new york in new york to do security prep for is first-rate united nations. and of course in that regard the map with the vulture passed in the new york conflict at a time when lavrov was the ambassador. one of the unknown come of boras, who was within picture package was working for the united states and at the end of 2000 he wrote a very interesting book with pete earley in which

he wrote a book that says they went to caches and they talk about how come the holiday hope to be will to implement the plan to kill the presidential chief of staff because he was standing against. i blame the chechens. when they realized it was so long that there would be too many to kill, even for us. zolotoft and muroff are in charge of the five talks. if you're feeling happy, i'll just go on to the place.

the place this team. i've always been interested of wife that so many tens of god and so many times to spain. so i started to investigate this was quite a bit on his trips to spain. the russian sources is the property was built in spain with money from the st. petersburg mayor's contingency fund initially for reservists. but it turns out they are all early surveys when it comes to a free trip in spain. at this skimming off of monday started with the leningrad communist party oney and that

the first hotel that was built into va have in spain the lead investigator brought by federal authorities into such a and putin. and it's rarely mentioned that putin was named in that investigation. so the lead investigator has stated in my interviews that he made 37 trips to spain on false papers. including head of the fsb.

that the investigators, the prosecutors gathered 110 volumes on this case before we shut down when he became president. and 110 volumes he states were handed over to radio liberty for insurance. i have confirmed with radio liberty and unfortunately for all of us to pass them onto an agency that likes to classify things. but it does mean that people in the u.s. government have 110 volumes. what happened in spain? in spain, after putin went to moscow, the group within the organized world who had demonstrated from him up into that time and those who are in

power and went to spain. so patcher off set off in spain. others in the circle of properties, could not be rest nick who is now the head of the two months anticorruption committee landed frame into became the minister of communication even by the corrections about the ministers and the spanish authorities acting on a request from inter-fold started to tap phone calls coming from these places. as we know from wikileaks they had phone calls from petrov to

four city ministers in the putin government, including especially in a toy store across who was regarded in his speech patterns, regarded petrov as its own bus. soon to decimate, operation troika was launched and petrov was arrested. officials including medvedev flew to spain wondered what is happening to our boys. bad things are happening to them in the nasty spanish presents. so women were released, wise and so far from petrov and malatov.

petrov is now back in russia and st. petersburg to travel evidently to the prosecutor, glenda gonzales is scheduled to resume this year. so one hopes that it does, but he stated this group laundered billions of euros, billions of euros from russia. and not only russia. so that is the third. the document. that is my last point. the document that i found very chilling when i found it, but it did make me very happy comes from commerce on may 3rd to 5th 2000. they ran three day articles on the document linked from the presidential administration in 1999 and had a the presidential

administration. this document was admitted to exist by the kremlin, but they claimed it was only a draft. however, everything in it was implemented in my opinion. in this document, which was about 44 pages long and only part of it appeared and immediately it disappeared from the archive. and i was able to find it. in the stock you may come to each department has given open and public tasks, the department of the presidential administration, as well as secret or actual tasks so that the presidential administration came tangibly and could greatly influence our political processes occurring in society. and this is a quote.

if the president really wants to ensure social order and stability in the country during his rule, and the self-governing political system is not needed. that is something we call democracy. instead company remained a political authority that will create the necessary political situations in russia and india are proud. it goes on to say other special and secret activities to counteract opposition will be entirely in the hands of the special forces. outlets will be driven to financial crisis. this is the one i particularly love. an early indication of their seriousness, the open function and relations with the opposition is to lock in

constitutional doors and join forces with the opposition in the fight against extremism. it is necessary always to run the port native plants of opposition in general and each oppositionists personally. this was written in 1999. so in conclusion, while the book certainly goes up to the present day, its real focus is on the basis that this regime and i believe that all is known by 2000. the great city prodded with him from the 1990s was the same group that is in power today, this failure by the west to confront this was a political failure, not an intelligent

failure. everything in the book was known and knowable and clearly the intelligence services of written in the united states in particular, the germany as well do much more. this was a failure of policy from looking into putin's eyes and seeing his soul underwent resume to a free site under another. the sanctions introduced in april represented closing of the circle and an admission that the u.s. government has known this and they know what they are dealing with. needless to say, the russians would like a second reset. i hope you are not so foolish to think that any reset with this group would be to our advantage. thank you very much. [applause]

>> of just going to say here because i want to be brief because the normal role in the discussion is to liven things up in case anyone has questions. i'm quite certain you are likely to have a comment. i have to start by saying this is an amazing book. after waiting for two years and i first typed a bad day, waiting to read it. i also want to commend karan publicly for the tearing that is going into this boat. you document not if they were saying russia, not just a few people who have died for working on this issue and i think we as an audience that we as a country of our indenture for taking this very brave step and researching it meticulously. the research is absolutely of the top caliber.

i am interested in this but can perhaps i suggested i will be a commentator because i've been working on the regime and the appearance of power that i think masquerade as kleptocracy and the façade, a pretense one rules when in fact a showing that it did not work and also a façade of democracy because this is a man of the people. this is a regular guy. this is a guy who uses tough language, so he must be speaking the truth. he must be authentic. their answers suited the way so his construct the same time. to make it look like he is the guy. he is the real person and not being manipulatively control from below. i'm going to be giving a talk in this room are also where in

january. i'm also very, very interested in a point kerry makes that doesn't tell them to, which looks like the system is a very old system. in medieval documents, with discussions of the russian word for attributes and officials feeding themselves through election procedures. they figure out ways of collecting the tax revenues and they were perfectly legit to bring money into their own pockets. i think it's also very interesting and the soviet parallels as well and substitute organizations was named after the soviets, even though real power within the party of like

the women's section of the party, which i've argued in my first book in the ways from the beginning, the oregon says they were called were connected with the state official powers. they absorb the section. the famous blue russian atf failed. putin also tried initially to figure out a russian idea and a few flags, but could not come up with a russian idea. the sad thing is how does this relate to the russian practice and ideology because there's so much concentration on the practice. so i want to stress what i think is really remarkable in this book that the tangled web of

interrelations, mafia oligarchs, bureaucrats, they are utterly interconnected. i think kerry and has identified a number of mysteries that we knew about the soviet, post-soviet field. we knew it appeared under gorbachev. we didn't know why. we ran into that in 1991. we didn't know why. we knew that there were suppression of justice, but we didn't know then i learned from the book that putin was not only as a lawyer for davis-based, he was creating them with the signatures and they would not stand up in a court of law. i'm sitting at peace right now in just a week before the 2000 election he said is it really about or snickers? there was a blatant disregard for elections. there is also this blatant financial manipulation of new,

important and will raise many, many questions. the question i want to flag is i think there's a very interesting tension in the book that i am sure you were aware of. what i want to push you. that is the best function of a commentator. you alternate between talking about prudence benevolence on page five, putin and arbiter, the one who keeps the figurehead for the structures in the criminal elements. it has been working for the power. i'm interested to see what to what extent do you think this one man was seeking to be the center of power versus a possible alternative interpretation of the poirier said thursday in the pre-soviet. seeking to find one man they

could hold up as the top guy. in many ways, is this 1% looking to pull strings or is this actually a wheel with a identified the one who will stand for us and the one who will be challenged. although i still think in 2011-2012, there may be thoughts of overturning them because the personal attacks and putin were so strong in any event. so that asserted the main question is how do we read all of these strengths. which way would you put it? the people in the field call them as the figurehead. after not talk or see her a strong government. and to what extent has he pulled their strengths pulled them this way? that is part question number one. question number two is about

sources. i don't want for a sack and to suggest it is anything less than the best sources you could find. but you've also got a big range of sources. you've got everything from lawyers and insiders to opponents and people falling out with the regime. we all do that. that is the source for anyone. is there a way you could characterize that specter on -- baby if you want to take other questions, but what would you say of the sources that you really rock bottom tries versus the ones that could be planned, could be dissatisfaction. could be muckrakers who are looking for this.

the argument holds because of the sheer volume of the sources. you could have somebody who asks, go ahead and ask it. i call it an immigrant problem. u.s. foreign policy has often been criticized for listening to afghan émigre who said you've got to go into afghanistan. iraqi and the great safeguard to go to iraq, to one extent are creating this because we can't entirely take the u.s. government knowledge. there's u.s. government investment in cold war thinking, so that would need -- how would you care arius the least trustworthy if you want to take that. the last things are a couple of

smallish weapons. i'm curious about your view of sanctions, to one event when any of these individuals do they continue the trend of personal life and power in russia? i've been very hard and it's finally documented personal list regime. i'm going to get in trouble, but i think a hybrid is fundamentally a weasel term and that we need to understand how this works. if this is a kleptocracy, the sanctions, does that change it or does it just go after these individuals and still live the problem? anyways, if we have regime change tomorrow and were toppled, could have been there for recurring nightmare, with the exchange? that's a good question.

rbc and also a new. and new. in russia where they've given out all the goodies and the recent arrests could signal the beginning of a terror and the attack on individuals is related to the reprisals to try to go after them. and the last thing i will say and i love the term the risk privatizing the rulers. i think it's also what's going on in eastern ukraine with setting up these fake reenactors they have deep money connections with one of the russian oligarchs who is friends with cooney and. they pride themselves on having

an orthodox oligarchy. so enough? >> i am going to turn it to karen to take the first crack at the question. >> i'm sure when i have to say will overlap with questions. i don't want to go on too long. vladimir putin in my opinion is benevolent. ethos of the arbiter between groups. there's also the creator and i think in my own opinion, why i came to really break with him completely was a person with some insignificant talent. he had choices. he could have done better for civil society. they could've done better for the population of russia.

he chose not to. these are all choices i made. these attributes. can you believe opponents? well, i think when you have people who were say sherpas for prudent for five years when you have deputy ministers are deputy prime ministers, one would have to say that their views are worth considering. and when they present data as has been the case in the very detailed studies on corruption or in testimony to congress, it is imperative upon us to look at this seriously. so i just regard this as a data mining cooperation. it's not to say just to take

another example is this something we should believe it, absolutely not. some of the things that are said about putin's private life, really, maybe. god forbid that any of the should have been a private life. any of the people i know anyway. i will say also because it comes to a point that i was going to mention any way about sources. one of the things that i've done for this book, which is going to make certain people at even more upset with me is that i have as of today uploaded all of the documents i use time tonight on -- onto a new website. so if you google putin's russia with a high sin, and maybe put

in their miami university, it will. and not, is your true book i have here? so i have that document that this excellent person who is now working in d.c. and you should all hire him, who translated it from pretty bureaucratic and not very elegant rush and into quite fitting glass, into accurate english lets say. so you can read that document in english and judge for yourself what they were planning. all of the documents from the crisis i have uploaded. i have uploaded a youtube video

that i don't know who put it on youtube, but it is prudent in 2009 of his election, preening like the news hour in front of pavlosky, the last end up as the night this private video. and you can decide for yourself. [inaudible] >> tonight is the election election. they were visibly looking at the incoming results. brownback ..

some of those are no longer there on youtube. but i captured them all and they are transcribed. and that's a lot of work. but they are there for all of you to look at. i've told the university that i hope they have capability to withstand a ddf, but i think they do. we will see. so i think that arrest in the

refusal, i think more important the refusal to release him from house arrest despite the petition from the union of industrialists is a signal that we will come after it if we need it. and, of course, there were internal reasons, you know, greek and so forth, why others close to put in my want that, but i think that for putting to allow it to continue suggests like already does, it signals, said tuesday of the 110, you've brought your money home, thank you very much, now we will be needing it. and he has said all the money he made is available to return to the state, if it's required. donbass, well, i've written a lot on this. all i will say is that there is

not colonial class that has arisen in russia. these are people who go around -- the new head came from -- even the chief in latvia in 1990. not a good person. so there's a whole group coming up, kind of middle ranked people who are capable of making good money doing this kind of predation on a local basis. and i think they are of course also helping the market to establish their domain in these places. and the great thing about these places is that we don't have embassies there. transparency international will not be sending up an office in

these places. they have diplomatic relations with each other, but not with anybody else. so this is important for offshore banking operations, for counterfeiting and all those things that are happening. >> well, i'm going to throw it open. i see a lot of hands went up i do want to take another question here. it's kind of just touches on what elizabeth was talking about as to who created putin, who was pulling the strings. in your book you talk about the rise of putin and his career. but really the most puzzling aspect is how he became boris yeltsin's successor. why did yeltsin decide of all the people that putin was going to be successor? he was a relatively obscure person, but when he raced into prime minister and not only raised him to prime minister, he said he will be the next president as well. nobody believed him because putin was a complete unknown at the time. certain events would transpire

to britain's strengths as they would. but why did yeltsin decide that putin was the one who's going to his success at? >> he spent a lot of time in the book -- i spent a lot of time on the book in the subject. so why do decide that he should be the successor, and why did others decide? i think the answer to both those questions, which they sold the yeltsin, was that he didn't give us a. he was very important in preparing the white house for the coming presidency of putin. we know that. so strobe talbott has talked about openly, that he came and cut a meeting with strobe talbott even though talbott

didn't trust him, and said that this got putin companies are real deal. is going to be a great guy. you continue on the path. and within three days of his inauguration, the tax police were wearing -- repelled down the building and crashed into the media offices. three days. and he said, i don't give them any credit for honesty at all but he did say and think he honestly believed it, what have we done? we've let the black colonels in. he realized that this was a mistake. but at the time he did not realize that there were two parallel tracks that putin was on. eight track it getting yeltsin to name them and giving the signal to the oligarchs that he was going to protect their

wealth, at the track of the fsb people. immediately came to party through the oligarchs out. he gave them a signal that they had to play by his rules. >> okay. we will take some questions. right here. >> my name is stephen to understand putin's former boss at the kgb is now an american citizen and works a few blocks from here, and he is under a death sentence in the soviet, in russia. you mentioned about how, what the relationship between putin, sort of leapfrog up in advance and what was then the kgb spent how putin leapfrogged or how -- let's start with putin.

they fell out -- they fell out. collusion -- from the early nice had identified himself as someone who wanted to modernize and westernize the new security apparatus. and that wasn't on the agenda of most of the people in the fsb so we find -- he found safe haven here. he certainly openly accused, talked about the sense of corruption coming from petersburg, very specifically and writing. so what did he expect from that? >> at the very end of your presentation you raised rather tantalizingly the question of

united states government policy, which he described as a political title or, not an intelligence failure. you didn't describe what you meant by the failure, what you thought the united states should have done, could have done. in your final since you employ the united states government should not now conduct a relationship with its russian government. i would like to ask you what specifically you think a government like ours should, could, would do with a government like this one? which apply that to other kleptocratic governments in the world in which i think i could name 30 or 40. >> you know, i spent two very interesting years in the state department went over chop into power, one thing i really learned was that this is a group of people are very expert and they think very deeply about these things. so i am not really interested in

criticizing government policy per se, but i do think that when we have a situation, since you mentioned the generalized problem of kleptocracy's, in which it's possible to open up accounts without the names, the names, the beneficial owners. then this is something that could be changed. the former media minister who is now the new medias are -- media czar was real by the "l.a. times" to have three properties in l.a., which are registered in the name of numbers. despite the fact that these properties are inhabited, two of

them are inhabited by his children. so allowing anyone, whether they are russian or not russian, to buy a property with a number, and llc which has a title, only a number, out lc number 423 strikes me as something that perhaps is that their interest in the long run. i don't know if any of you have been to miami recently, not mine but the other one, we don't have a problem with people buying real estate in miami. but in miami, florida, the landscape of miami, florida, has been really transformed by the purchase of real estate for the sole purpose of money laundering. real people are not living in these apartments. they are apartments that are completely in the end that are exchanged as in belgrade, our

exchanged in payment for debt. because they are worried about, you know, the reliability of the banking system. that problem is the increased of course with sanctions. so there are things that i think are generalized problems back could definitely be dealt with. i do think the u.s. government is aware of them and is now going to become even more committed to dealing with this problem. >> first of all, congratulatio congratulations. for your book and presentation. i have questions related to each other. one is you named the book kleptocracy. why among the system you describe, like mafia, thugs,

kgb, others come you've chosen exactly this particular feature of the most important just to name the book? maybe some others equally important. or maybe some other reasons just specific you can discuss what was the reason from and what other features important? and another one probably both karen and elizabeth maybe you can participate in this as well. if we think about the classification of political regimes around the world and historically, where would you put this particular example? which particular regime would remind you be selected this one? historically or internationally. >> well, i do say that, in the book, that many words have been

used to describe this, whether corporation or kleptocratic. i'm a great admirer of the book on -- [inaudible] for example. i think the word kleptocracy correctly conveys a normative evaluation. that this is a system that we shouldn't in any way condone by calling it something that doesn't travel. i mean, i russian elites, system themselves. and i'm fine with the. i'm not saying it should called that but i do think that when a book is published in the states, conveying a sense of what we are really talking about here, and the major feature of this system

is that. it's theft from the state to private individuals. and when i say the state, i mean that includes all russians. so when we talk about 110 in 871, how did they get to the 871? because of the 110. i think it's important to convey that. i think historically it is a system without parallel. i mean, in the size of the effort. now, i have had long discussions with many friends and panels and so forth about fascism. should we start using the f word to describe russia's? well, the difference between the

fascist rise in germany, or elsewhere, but particularly in germany, and in russia, is that in russia their greed is much more important to them than the ideology. the ideology is the colonel that they wrap it all up then, that they feed to the propaganda machine so that people, ordinary people can feel that they have, that they are contenders, right? that they can go off and fight summer, that russia is back and so forth. so i don't -- one of course could use that but also that whole thing has been so debased by the russian ukraine crisis. so that's really what i chose the word kleptocracy. >> very briefly. i'm really interested in the term because i think what's very

interesting is the absence of a commonwealth. part of that is i think rush is extremely difficult to rule. the more i study russia and the teacher, the more i think it's going to always have pockets of corruption. the united states was 13 small college with a bunch of white men who owned those slaves. didn't have to contend, they had to make relationships with each other that allow them to build a sense of trust. that's changing in the global world. one of the things that is so interesting is the ways they could create a liberal economy. i learned this from karen's book, they could create a liberal economist and russia while getting rid of their contenders and storing the money globally. so i really think that's very important. so for me the term i keep coming back to is a term that one of the storms develop, nancy goldman, the façade about

kleptocracy. anybody who observes russia like those, and many of the journals are doing fantastic work on this, that plans are fighting under the rug, there's a constant tension over who can control which piece of the pie, but it's very hard to be a do-gooder in a situation where the games are too easy to hide. i think, so the long-term question will be how to build institution, checks and balances, windows have not historically, the soviet union created a moral system, a civilizing system, a whole lot of pressure on individuals, but it didn't create the right institutions because they undermine law. so unless they find ways to rebuild in those institutions, it's going to come down constantly to individuals trying to make money. that's were i met. >> we will take three questions. please keep the questions short.

one, two, and three. go ahead. >> since you asked the one about yeltsin, could you say something about -- in the late gorbachev years or a year or two later, he was portrayed in the west as a liberal. how did he pick putin and why did he pick? do you have anything in the book about the apartment house bombings? >> take a question right here. >> thank you. you already sort of touched on this. greed is sort of paramount to this regime. the russian economy is not in tremendously good shape and will beginning only worse. it's also well and good for them to save money is that the government's disposal but what does happen when the money starts to disappear and you can't message by everyone off?

>> and less unkempt last question right in front here. -- thank you. i would've wished -- >> no, no, no. we will have this question to you will start the next renter i promise you. there will be a next round. >> from your presentation or your book, it's time to move the study of russian politics from apartment to the seminal studies -- criminal studies the? the wilson center for advisement, go to the fbi, and that as far as foreign policy is concerned, the experience of the middle east, the middle east, corrupt leaders, that's one area. i mean, your conclusion seems that they're relevant. is that fair to say? thank you.

>> okay. well, yes, i do deal with the apartment bombings. in my opinion the explanation for why putin's ratings went up from 2% to over 70% was because he became the war president. i also believe that the evidence suggests strongly that the rehousing bomb that were planted which led to fsb employees being arrested, it was an fsb operation endless plan when putin was head of the fsb. it's a very serious thing, charge me because it means that this is a massive false flag operation organized by a group close to yeltsin to bring

someone to power that bound by bombing three apartment buildings in moscow. that's just a horrendous thing. while the residents were sleeping. this is no way to win an election. the darling of the west and enough to travel here and he got many invitations to travel here and he always got very, very good press when he did. he was willing to receive gifts. which, of course, in russia is necessarily corruption. he and putin received mercedes each in the very early '90s.

and when the american consulate in petersburg called and said we know that the elite is starting to drive mercedes but i wonder if you could recommend the dealer. the next day goodness stopped driving his versace and didn't drive it again. sochet continue to try. sochet was protected by the order of being a liberal democrat. he was one of the big democrats. and he continued to be that way. i think he died under very mysteries circumstances. won't say more about that. there were two autopsies. i will say one thing about the that which autopsies, one that was held in kaliningrad in which the prosecutor said we're going to open up case of death under mysteries circumstances. his body was taken to the main

medical academy run by the soon to become minister of health under putin, was given a second topsy. it was announced he had died of a heart attack. he was buried the next day. what happens when the money runs out? i think this is the message. what happens when the money runs out is that they will go around and take it from whoever has it. the money is now back in russia. but i agree that even that money might run out. i think it will be hard to shake some of the loose, but they already have started to raid the pension funds. they've already announced that for the next two years been around the budget for health will be cut in double digits. so the also just take more out of the population. should the fbi get involved?

they are already involved. they've been in fall. there's fbi officers in moscow and the been there for sometime, and they're also treasury people. this has become a multi-agency challenge, as it should be. good question though. >> so here, here and here. >> i have which is appreciate if you would elaborate on matt's comments at the opening about there not being one bank account, which i so you agree with. it is, in fact, a common, for lack of a goo better word, solun being pushed here in washington that we just shut down the bank accounts. we know what they are, and you certainly seem to know. >> right here. >> hi. i'm a journalist from voice of america, ukrainian service. my question is about ukraine. why do you think putin bothered

himself with his? was changed in ukraine a threat to putin's system, or did putin just want to play nationalistic cards to pursue political reasons? what is really a threat to him? >> and right here. >> third question was about sanctions. are they going to do any good? >> okay, bank accounts. i don't know, if i knew the bank accounts i would be sitting in the south of france enjoying myself. i think the tragedy of putin is that, i mean, from putin's point of view, is that the state department, or the treasury, announced come with a announced the sanctions, there's one sentence that is more important than all the others. and the one sense is that

vladimir putin owns shares. it's in the state department. it's in the treasury sanctions list. so they really are signaling -- i mean this is a signaling game. they would are signaling that we know a lot about this. i don't think they know everything, but they know a lot. so when he sold his share the day before the sanctions came down, sold his own sure, he also sold putin's share. what's happening to put its money? putin is supposed to have a large portion in bayer shares. iffy on this piece of paper and it's a better share, the own that. if you give it to elizabeth, she owns it. well, what if you're a mosque and she can't get out or you want to catch this stuff in?

you got in a bank. they used to manage putin's private money. most of it was in better share. not all that but a lot of it. how are you going to catch that? so think there is a personal problem for putin. why did putin bothered himself with ukraine? i think that there have been mistakes. i think he would probably and self regard the situation there as not an ideal situation. i mean, one would hope so anyway. but one shouldn't overlook the extent to which the oligarchs around him own huge assets in ukraine, especially in southeast and south ukraine. of course in crimea but also in

odessa. for any of you who are interested, i really do command a work called odessa network, which talks about the details of people who, you know, one of putin's dairy major allies who was with him in dresden, and how he owned major parts of the port in odessa. and a lot of the arms that could be serious or going through this operation in east ukraine. arms production, and then through odessa. so there's a big financial interest that the people around putin have in ukraine. it's very, very important, and i think when john a call which fled, which this wasn't planned

by the kremlin -- .co which. they wanted him to stay but when he fled a lot of those interests were suddenly extremely exposed. >> i want to also talk of sanctions again because we remember and his arrest in 2003, i have, i started writing, all the other oligarchs all came and bowed down. yes, we will do this, we will do that. what about the chance, since this is a shocking anyway, to a certain extent it's like the soviet union. ownership doesn't matter. connections matter, right? if putin does all the connections and moreover, they have an interest in staying in power, you can have all -- baby the sanctions are at best solution because they're nonmilitary,