we have already had some great reviews. i did the plan with some of the leading scholars and economists and tax experts that there are in this country. they love it very they say why hasn't this been done before. and this is what i do well. economy is what i do well. whenever they do polls i always come out way ahead on the economy and leadership by the way but i won't say that. so if anybody has -- [applause] thank you. that's amazing. some of the press was actually clapping. i don't think i've ever seen that before. why don't we take some questions from the press. yes, go ahead. we have some of the top people in the country working on this.

we are looking at 3% but we think it can be five or six. that would be tremendous and by the way if we have more than three these numbers are really spectacular and one of the things that they don't take into account in a big league fashion is the cutting. there's so much waste in government that i believe when i get in there i will be able to cut without losing anything, to cut tremendous amounts often we are not showing anything today so they are very conservative numbers. [inaudible] >> my taxes, first of all i have a much simpler tax plan. when i do my return my returns go up to the ceiling and beyond. which is ridiculous. you spend millions of dollars at a high level and lawyers and

accountants and everything else. we want to simplify the tremendous level. the bracket of 25, the big differences many of the loopholes and many of the deductions which are old and have been there for years are antiquated and were prepared because a lot of the people that get these deductions are choubey did to hillary. they are contributing to whoosh and country bidding for every candidate but trump because i'm not taking any money. these people want these actions. there will be people -- we are reducing taxes but believe me there'll be people people in the apparatus to lots of won't be thrilled with this. we are taking awaits the actions and that's one of the reasons we are able to lower them. this is actually a tax reduction. including for the upper income. i believe that the economy will do so well that even though they won't be getting certain

deductions which aren't fair for them to be getting that they wind up doing better. yes, go ahead. [inaudible] >> i just think this is a commonsense approach. we could play -- we could pay supply-side. i don't think it's supply-side or anything else. i think this is a commonsense well thought out tax proposal that's going to trigger the economy, going to make everybody go back and really want to work. it's going to create tremendous numbers of jobs. one of the other things that i'm coupling this with if i become president i'm going to renegotiate our trade deals. trade deals are not sustainable by this country. we cannot continue to let our jobs go to all the different countries.

there's not a country that we have a good shade with the this mic a better deal. we lose money with everything. i'm also going to renegotiate some of our military costs because we protect south korea. we protect germany. we protect some of the wealthiest countries in the world saudi arabia. we protect everybody. we protect everybody. we don't get reimbursement. we lose on everything. we lose on everything. so we are going to negotiate in renegotiate trade deals, military deals, many other deals that is going to get the cost down for running her country vary significantly. i'm not showing a pic number in that but i believe if i become president those numbers are going to be massive. as an example saudi arabia. they make a billion dollars a day. we protect them so we need help. we are losing a tremendous amount of money on a yearly basis and we owe $19 trillion. i used to say 18 but the last

six or seven months now it's 19 and it's only going up. yes, tom. [inaudible] >> look, senator rubio is a lightweight. we understand that. he wouldn't be able to do this. he would know a trade deal from any other deal and what certain people are trying to do is they're trying to -- we just went up in the last poll. we went up two points last poll and we continue to grow -- to go up. we are going up strongly in the polls. they don't know what to do about it. i built a great company. you will see that on "60 minutes". is a phenomenal company with very little debt and tremendous cash flow. i'm funding my own campaign. guys like rubio, he desperately needs money. ask the car dealer in florida. as the people that support him and that i like rubio are to want to single him out. you are singling him out but

there are to control either donors and special interest and frank way more than anybody else the lobbyists. i turned down millions of dollars from lobbyists and special interest because it's not the right thing. that seems to be resonating. [applause] thank you, thank you. [inaudible] >> i negotiate. is that a bad thing? the country should do that. i would bring the same attitude to the white house. she said i have a habit. when you get the bill to call up any nick o'shea. to me that's a compliment. i want to take that to the white house. i would bet you we could save 20% of our budget. i could save in more. that has to be the attitude our

country has. you can't send millions and millions of dollars doing something that you can do for $2000. when you get costs, we just spent a million dollars building a soccer field. a soccer field for our prisoners that happened to be in guantánamo. i don't like that. what do you need a million dollars for? level the surface and let them play. why do you need to spend a million dollars? bleaches spend a million dollars on the soccer field? how do you spend a million dollars during doing a soccer field? you have a level piece of land. throw them out all and let them play soccer if they have to play at all. why are they playing soccer is my question. yes sir, go ahead. it's too long. you don't have time.

why don't you go ahead. [inaudible] >> now, not golf. we are lowering taxes which republicans love and one of the reasons i'm doing so well in the polls and when it comes to the economy is that this is the thinking. we are lowering taxes. we are simplifying and we are getting rid of deductions that are actually obsolete that certain people want to keep for certain reasons so that's not true. yes sir, go ahead. putin was interviewed and i was interviewed last night. i saw the interview and i

thought charlie rose did an excellent job. scott pelley interviewed me. i thought scott was terrific. it was a tough interview but i thought he was very fair and i thought the piece was very good. yeah, go ahead. why is he harder on me than putin? i would say because putin is a nicer person than i am. go ahead. [inaudible] >> right, right. the worst in 36 years. it's a good question. i guess it has been probably sent so forth. you are talking 10, 11 or 12 years. people wanted to bring the money

back into the country and again it's all corporate inversion and a lot of times corporations are moving out and going to other countries and taking jobs. now we have a really big problem because we have very large prestigious companies as you know. obviously know something up business but we have major companies looking to move out of united states. it used to be they would move from new york to florida or from new jersey to texas or whatever. now they're talking about moving from the united states to ireland to england and other places to stay where they get treated frankly better. in doing that for a number of reasons but one of the big reasons is to get all of this cash built up and they can't get back into our country. when this money comes back into her country everybody will be put to work in our country largely. i think it will be an amazing

thing. here's the other thing, they think it's $2.5 trillion. i think it's much more than that. i actually think it's going to be more money than that and if it is we have -- go ahead, real fast. and not that. [inaudible] >> you know when you get the money coming back in beyond, tremendous things happen. i will be announcing that in the not-too-distant future. i'm the only one that's honest about this. i watched romney and they pay so much tax. i watch all politicians and they say -- i fight like hell to pay as little as possible. i'm not a politician. i fight like hell always because it's an expense.

i fight. i have the best lawyers and i have the best account of them i fight but it's an expense and frank wade i would feel differently if this country were spending the money wisely instead of throwing it down the drain. our country spends her money so stupidly and i will tell you that i can speak for myself. i pay a lot of tax but i fight like hell to make it as low as possible. i would feel a lot differently if our leadership would respect the decision. all you have to do is look at the list of the things that our government spending money on right now. you don't feel so good about our country. i will tell you what in terms of income inequality we are going to create a lot of jobs. right now we have a five-point

or, 5.3, 5.6 every month is different. it's such a phony funny number because some people look and look and give up looking or a job they take it off. i've seen numbers of 24%. i actually saw a number of 2% unemployment. 42%. because when you're looking for a job and you go-round and new book and your book and you find anyone to work and take care of your family and then you can't get the job. you know what i'm talking about because you are shaking your head and you can't get the job. for statistical purposes you are considered employed. then i read every time it comes out i hear 5.3% unemployment. that is the biggest joke there is in this country. that number is so wrong. people ask how come trump's

trump is doing so well and carson and others, you know why they are doing while? people are tired of political speak. the worst example, one of the worst examples is the phony unemployment rate. the unemployment rate is probably 20% but i will tell you if you have some great economist will tell you it's 30, 32. the highest i have heard so far is 42%. there is anger out there. one other thing, with that being said china, japan, mexico, brazil, these countries are all taking our jobs like we are a bunch of babies. that will stop. people will treat us fairly if i become president. we are losing our jobs. we are losing our base. we are losing our manufacturing. all of that will stop.

[inaudible] what i'm really doing is the big picture because corporations are going to start having an incentive to create jobs. they are going to have an incentive also to stay in this country. if they provide that people have for money to spend. if a corporation gives out a bigger dividend that's great. mr. jones gets a bigger dividend he's going to have more money to spend on the economy so that's good. yes maam. [inaudible] should chris christie what? i know nothing about that. go ahead. i'm not a populist. i'm a man of great common sense.

i am a man who is both the is both a german company with the best locations and real estate. i have many of these. i have employed tens of thousands of people. i am playing now thousands and thousands of people. i've done a good job. i would say i'm a man of common sense. i'm cutting taxes. i'm going to create a lot of jobs. i'm going to get rid of the tremendous amount of place and i will tell you what the ways that i get rid of, the waste that i get rid of this going to have a huge impact and i'm not even putting that in my numbers. so i think it's going to be terrific. how about one more question? go ahead. the motor industry, that's a wonderful way to describe it. where you from? england, what a beautiful accent. we call it the automobile industry, want to get these

automobile industry factories. ford is building a $2.5 million plant in mexico and mexico took a big plant out of tennessee. i want the motor company says he would say or the automobile companies to build their plans in the united states. i don't want a disco leaving for mexico or anyplace else. i want these companies not to leave chicago, not to leave michigan, not to leave new hampshire and iowa and south carolina and all of these places where they are leaving and they are going to other countries. i want them to stay here and they will stay here and they will be so happy. ladies happy. ladies and gentlemen thank you very much. it's been a great honor. thank you, thank you. [applause] thank you.

>> studentcam is c-span2's annual.entry competition. it's an opportunity for students to think critically of issues of national importance by creating a five to seven minute documentary. it's important for students to get involved because it gives them the opportunity and a platform to have their voices heard on issues that are important to them. so they can express those views by creating a documentary. we do get a wide range of entries. the most important aspect for every documentary that we get is going to be content. we have had winners in the past created by using a cell phone and we have others that are created using more high-tech equipment but once again it's the content that matters and shines through. the response from students in the past it's been great.

there've been many different issues that they have created video son. we have topics ranging from education and the economy and the environment showing a wide friday of issues that are important to them. c having more water in the river would have positive impacts. >> we have come to the consensus that humans cannot run without food. >> prior to the individuals -- children with disabilities weren't given the opportunity of an education. >> this year's theme is wrote to the white house. what's most important issue you want for candidates to discuss in the 2016 presidential campaign lacks it is full on into the campaign season. there many different candidates discussing several issues. one of the key requirements and creating a dot entries to an good footage. this footage complements and furthers the point of view and

doesn't just dominate the video but it's a great way for them to include more information on the video that furthers their point. >> the first bill is the water resources reform and development act also known as the word out. >> we all joke about school meals and a fish fish sticks in the mr. meat tacos. >> is the vital role that the government place. it's especially vital for students with disabilities. students and teachers can go to our web site at studentcam.org and they will find more permission about the role some requirements but they will also find teacher tips, rubrics to help them incorporated into their classroom incorporating c-span video and ways to contact us if they have any further questions. >> the deadline for this year's competition is january 20, 2016 which is exact to one year away from the next presidential inauguration.

>> unless congress acts most federal government agencies will be forced to close on wednesday. today the senate debated the temporary spending measure to keep the government funded until mid-december. majority leader mitchell, minority leader harry reid debated this continuing resolution on the senate floor. this is 15 minutes. >> a new senate majority came to office this year with a different outlook on government wanting from the previous majority. first, we passed a budget. then we worked across the aisle passed the committee with dozens of bills necessary to fund the government. that's the first time either of these things have happened in six long years. our commonsense approach represented real hope that with the necessary cooperation from across the aisle a new and better way of funding the government was actually possible

democrats initially gave americans reason to believe they might be ready to offer that bipartisan cooperation. democrats gave bipartisan committee backing to nearly all of that doesn't government funding bills and a majority of these bills attracted support from the 70% of democratic appropriations committee members democrats even bragged about supporting these funding bills and press releases to their constituents. but this was before democrats hatched their filibuster summer planned. in other words block all the government funding bills in hopes of provoking a crisis democrats might exploit to grow the irs and the d.c. bureaucracy. the result you actually saw democratic leaders to clear that they would use procedural votes to prevent the full senate from even debating the same funding legislation members of their party had already praised in their press releases to their media.

democrats even voted repeatedly to block the bill that funds our military. think about that. funds for our military. it would have been cynical enough for our colleagues to block a bipartisan defense funding bill. democrats have hailed as a victory for their states but while living in a time of fun pair love international crisis thread seem to mount less by the day than by the hour. last week democrats voted against applaud the bipartisan bill that funds pay raises and medical care. it was really extreme. i wish i could say it was the only extreme position our democratic friends took last week. on thursday senators were given a choice between running women's health and hunting a scandal racked political organization called planned parenthood peer republicans stood up for women's

health. democrats stood up for their political friends. i think democrats will come to regret the prior decision of the needs of the far left over women, over military over seemingly everything else. the question before us now is how to keep the government open in the short term given the realities we face. here is what the president of right to life had to say on the matter. this is the present of national right to life. there are two different roads we can take. one is to insist that no more money go to planned parenthood and cause a government shutdown which interestingly enough won't result in defunding planned parenthood anyway. the other is to take a slightly longer-term approach taking advantage of the fact that we have the attention of the country is probably never before. so that democrats not prevented

the senate from passing the same appropriations bills they voted for and praise we wouldn't be having this discussion right now but they did. they pursued a deliberate strategy to force our country into another up these unnecessary crises. this leads to funding legislation is the only viable way forward in the short term. doesn't represent my first, second, third or 23rd choice when it comes to funding the government budget will keep the government open to the fall and funded at the bipartisan level agreed to by both parties as we work our way forward. madam president i ask unanimous consent at all time during quorum calls until 5:30 the church equally between both parties. >> is there any objection? without objection. c madam president. >> the democratic leader. >> another manufactured showdown

is enforced now. dafoe to invoke cloture on a clean -- keeps the government under the plan. we believe debate will continue on this issue. that takes a simple majority. we are on the verge of avoiding a republican sponsor shutdown. fortunately cooler heads are prevailing. this last-minute scramble on the most basic job is as as unnecessary as it is right less. for two days away from a shutdown, only two days and why? because republicans made at the number one priority to undermine women's health keeping the government open and funded serving the american people as the secretary concerned that these extremists in the republican party. my friend or her puppy and later

talking about this vote two days ago, he said planned parenthood died i say health for women. understand madam president the republicans couldn't even get a majority vote on this. couldn't get a majority vote. they were down in the 40 silly than republicans think what is going on now is foolish. keeping government open and funded and serving the people as the secondary concern for these extremists and that's too bad. while i'm pleased we have a path toward two avoid shutdown i am concerned about the republicans modus operandi by governing always by crisis. remember this is the fifth time in two years that republicans have manufactured a shutdown crisis. two years ago they shut the government down for 17 days.

republicans shut down the government and we were all me able to get ourselves out of that marasco because for example in the house of representatives, two-thirds of the republicans in the house voted to keep the government closed. unbelievable but that's the way it was. here it is now two years later and we are on the verge of another shutdown. remember this, the fifth time in two years the republicans have manufactured an unnecessary showdown crisis and it is a showdown. too bad it's leading to a shutdown. as indicated before shut down the federal government was because of health care. now seven months ago republicans almost shutdown homeland -- department of homeland security. the department of homeland security, they wanted to shut it down.

it was saved by the last minute. i should say in the last-minute. mr. president these are the agencies within this department who protect us. they protect us from terrorists. protect us from the many things that happen in our country that we need protection from. this past spring the shutdown key national cicada programs the foreign intelligence surveillance act. why? they were fighting among themselves. their book and later wanted a bill for certainly the time and people in his caucus wanted another. it was a fight among them, not among us but it came close to wreaking havoc. it did wreak some havoc because they have program was shut down for a while. more recently they shut down expert import bank endangering hundreds of thousands of bank -- jobs and is still close.

now we are just days from another shutdown. .. the measure is really shortsig shortsighted. december 11. that means within the coming weeks we will again be negotiating with republicans to avoid another shutdown. we'll also have to pay a find to pay -- have to find a way to pay our bills. republicans tried that once. we came within minutes of doing that. the federal government, this great country of ours, wouldn't be able to pay its bills. but we see the press, we see all the stories about the speaker who stepped down -- who will step down in five years and we hear the republicans over there, they're joyous.

one republican running for president announced this -- and there was cheering and the person running for president, who serves in the senate, was of >> >> it is hard to comprehend. [inaudible conversations] cheering for this government to be close but that is what they're doing. that we should not pay our debt. last week the far right show you can oppose the speaker and in the coming-- i am deeply concerned that said as honestly as i could i

don't always agree with him and he always told me the way a was. i am concerned but that is too bad, november 1st rehab no way of knowing what they will do. as numerous house members have said that neither with the global economy. because of the republican shutdown.

and that they need to exploit the american people don't want this but no one it turned into the doomsday clock. some overt let's turn our attention. the senior senator from arizona. someone knows about the of military. >> they were never supposed to happen with the budget negotiation so let's start working to help middle-class put our country a more sound economic footing to avoid a shutdown.

let's do before we have another catastrophe. copy at

c-span.org/landmark cases. >> a discussion about the increased involvement of the russian military in the syrian civil war. russia is supplying more troops and increasing military aid to the bashar al-assad regime. from the washington institute for middle east policy this is an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. locum to the of washington and institutes the shriver family conference center than those offices i am delighted to welcome you to this event is the sign of

how much things have changed in the middle east with a roomful of knowledgeable of the least of servers to end the session in 2015 with some of mitt - - escalation of syria. this is not set topic:anyone's agenda over the last 30 or 40 years. but it is the topic on the agenda today. with president obama and president putin jousting with each other at united nations only one of them is to begin deploying military

power inside syria and that is what brings us together. but what in fact, are their brushes doing to syria? and ultimately they can or will or should do to address this even more complicated problem though we're very fortunate to with a of a broader way of expertise brought to bear i just backed of the russian and syria problem that i just referred to.

i am proud to introduce some of you may have known before in others i will introduce for the first time. it is not the way people are sitting we will get the drift very quickly. on the far left jeff is defense fellow here at the washington institute, a longtime analyst he will go into some detail to bring the facts to bear. on what the russians are doing on the ground in syria. and then to turn to a and now.

onrush of metal eased policy tutto the into the strategic aspects of what the russians are up to and the broader implications. third is a andrew that is our fellow here at the institute. building floor on the ground experience so what is the status of u.s. efforts. they just leave it -- at the is to. and to have a unique insight based on his is years of steady including the years

spent traveling in and around syria with a unique set of insight and observations and experiences with this comprehensive discussion of russian deployment so first guy turned to do jeff. >> okay. is interesting to are gone russians and syria because

one of the for situations i worked in the middle eastern intelligence community was russian invention -- intervention into egypt. the challenge posed to lou the israelis by the special presence in egypt since it is fun to come back to race situation like this where the situations are deploying significant military power into syria. there are a lot of reasons put out is out of sight international relations. and reasons to explain behavior but the reason the

main reason than the intention to fight an unchanged at military situation. for them to you think about or be debated but the m to you t or be debated but the major reason they put combat forces in twos syria but to read it is evident in the nature of their build up. >> how are we doing this? so as to have those ships and with the upper right shows that ship that is

endowment and with the transport type of aircraft will couple times a day the variety of aircraft the heavy equipment and what came by air. most of this stuff comes down from russia through iran. from iraq into syria. end reseed this going on every day with the scope of

the buildup. had to stop the air lifted the also use the airlift and they can bring in 28 combat aircraft that was that noticed. i am assuming the intelligence community had a better idea, and the made money for the air operations ed upgraded with improvements to additional

pads for helicopters. the the logistics' base also a helicopter base a former syrian warwick -- storage and home depot so they have to air bases operating inside syria read that there is a desk -- discussion of the when space there may be to other air facilities. unconfirmed but more baby going on there and what we see in the province. they're also using to bring in the heavy equipment that

is the essential core age of the air bridge toward the sea bridge. excuse me. this is the order of battle that we can see so far. with the multi role combat aircraft is his long-range flanker ended is somewhat analogous of the aircraft. but there is three russian drones operating and syrian airspace they have an ideal 28 collector to do other things as well inland there is some evidence of the airborne command posts operating in syria.

it is not a huge and by air or standards especially but it gives them a lot of different options. on the ground where we believe to be the case is the infantry brigade also a fairly significant combat force for the russians and by elements may be with the battalion sized in not a full brigade they put in tanks that is the most modern tank. nobody has this and that will be on the syrian battlefield and it will be

the best. with the armored personnel carrier includes of more advanced version of that vehicle with 20 batteries of field artillery and at best estimates between two and 4,000 troops. maybe not that high but a significant amount as well. interestingly they have deployed the system that is very capable and very modern with short to medium-range this is the weapon that is a threat to any aircraft operating in the area. we have not seen this on satellite imagery in the public domain. but it is supposed to be

there. also command a and control structure that there would not deploy those forces without having a way to coordinate operations between the ground and air forces. some pieces have been identified with mobile command vehicles and some in the jury evidence that may be five stations is cited the up province. so this is a well-rounded capability. potential missions commit doesn't mean they do them out but these are things they could do. reconnaissance, read this is already under way with a lot of reporting with activity over syria especially.

but now we hear they fly out to the iraqi border and have penetrated iraqi airspace. so they are collecting information on the environment they may have to fight in. closer support for sure it is a good platform for doing that they had 12 of back to be important on battlefields. with the interdiction it is quite capable to range across most of syria and it is a good platform even with precision strike capability to hit things on the ground especially towns or cities.

it have been doing it especially at the higher lovell's not at the tactical level to put a small russian unit was there anything that would put their troops in with the regime's forces. >> we're getting word that they are employed with roadblocks with internal security missions. a lot of russians some i have also engaged in subversive actions there is their main fighting role. will also get some referring

it as the russian special forces troops are not acting i think where do they operate? >> selective the employment. it is the main threats to the regime will of the princess of horror taiwan. rand the whole package based on the venue but possibly ground forces. the key areas that i can see right now to fight is where

we have evidence they are deployed doing stuff now, the damascus region region, maybe maybe not because of the complexity of the fighting the regime is the one to lose. though holding is tenuous but they still have a choke. we already had some reporting russian combat forces are involved in the effort to relieve the regime in the area is this unconfirmed but people are already talking about forces getting out of the ground. in eastern homes especially the gas fields once the regime is constantly fighting to protect from isis. those are some areas.

>> they give a decisive edge and not big enough now to conquer the territory from the syrian regime at least the forces we see now and i don't think the russians would deploy into syria but of certain battlefields they could be decisive. for example,, if they deploy a the forces that are developing in syria i don't think the regime would have lost. that is the change i think the forces could make if built up to the right size and so on and increase the attrition a good bit of the

syrian war is over attrition. data day or month-to-month this is one of the major factors to determine the outcome and it is. >> i think they can but to provide intelligence and if you looked at the effectiveness of all forces inside syria, they're pretty well balanced. it isn't clear one group has a big hitch with her military but for them to

become a matter of assyria to storm the russians and a half to cast if that white scenario is beating it but i think they have learned our lives and i am not sure if we will see that man engaging with the russians. >> with my he eighth it just isn't for specifically to fight to better to support

them dash fights it than kowloon did but there are more troops it can have significant effect on the battlefield of the about the note that it can give the russians that peace of the direction and if they have combat forces and that they

are -- continued with that view will save questions students let me start by home plate -- before addressing the u.n. general assembly. while there wasn't any surprises in this docket is indicative to the approach of the middle east. 1.he made is he talked about a senior - - a single center of dominance that did not have to reckon with the un. he talks about what an enormous ability not to cooperate to and not to concede so to be in soviet

space but it was or who surrounded by the west. with that in mind i vague way will we have put a - - happy to hear. >> by friday to a commonly cf to say really have our differences bedclothes air enough a barrier thank and you did not need to in the heat directly. he is also trying to position as a great power that to the states asked to speak with on equal terms. so in his approach to diplomacy is a zero sum. we have seen that we all

have a stake in each other's success and putin does not see it that way. if the question was to continue the conflict by watching any real solution he was to protect the naval power one of the things putin has done is the prairie to expand up presents and they will help him do that. for the first time with egypt over the summer. but he is testing the west to see how far he can go but there has ben none. but what is important is the repression in domestic situation whereby to turn to for the remainder of my talk putin in next cry me a at a

time when his approval ratings were at the low point double majority. the economy was already in a downward spiral and there is a number of domestic paul - - by pointing out the approval rating is shot up immediately. the problem with doing that if you embark on a task you have to keep in ben team crisis so that of baldwin is syria could very well tell us how to do that parker in the long run this period and in venture could turn out bad the for russia itself that it is unsustainable it could find the military stretched too thin and putin

is aware of this made dash year the invented the existing decree to put it rush of military losses even in peacetime special operations. one way he has managed to hide and will likely do that in syria as well but the problem with hide being you can only do that for so long. but immediately when the buildup of a liberal elite spoken out in against but wouldn't put it to improve the and this there were

apartment bobbings with that election in 2000 and again his approval ratings shot up from very low up have very, very high so we compare that against terrorism so what isn't new and it fits with the domestic context. russia is not a strong country by the indicators. but it is a and and and and of precious weakness and to

position himself as a counterweight a country that explain said very well with lack of political will to do some of my personal welcome to the institute it is great to be here with all my colleagues said interesting time. of diplomatic circles concerning syria, and i think from earlier this year, as the opposition has pushed the assad regime's forces into another

what would be described as regime contraction, there's been considerable talk about u.s.-russian convergence on syria. there are lot of reasons for that. in january and april, russian -- the ministry of for foreign affairs held two rounds of peace talks in moscow that failed to yield any results with the last one going particularly badly, and we'll talk about that. so, after this failure and the assad's regime's battlefield failures there was some followup meetings in may, and particularly one between secretary of state john kerry and russian president vladimir putin, that were supposedly about russia and the u.s. moving toward each other on two many

issue issues. talk of area of convergence. one was on then flow of foreign fighters going to and coming back from syria, and two was the need to pressure the assad regime into a diplomatic end to the syrian conflict based on assad's transition from power. the reason why is that during the second peace talks in moscow, in april, russian officials and others flew to damascus and special with president asad ahead of the meeting and asked for two ones. one for -- jaffrey not to head the delegation. the other one was to make more significant confidence-building measures on the release of political prisoners which was requested be a flub of those attending the peace talks from the opposition side. when the peace talks -- the plane plants in moscow and the door opens up and jaffrey gets

off the plane. second, during the peace talks, the regime released a few people from jail but not the ones the opposition really want told be released from jail, thus giving the opposition representatives very little diplomatically, ask and the talks quickly broke down. they were supposed to tackle four different issues and they really didn't get off the ground substantially. so, that is ultimately where -- in terms of tracking this, where the meeting came from with putin and kerry. i if you look at that, now we have a significant, large russian military buildup in syria, designed to now, in terms of what heard from president putin at the u.n., was to fight terrorists and also prop up a legitimate state. the idea is what produced this?

so, just to give you a little background. for the past two years, at the invitation of the russian ministry of defense i traveled to moscow to attend their annual security conference, and to engage russian officials and intellectuals on this very subject. you probably noticed didn't write anything about that after the two trips. the reason was its was very difficult for me to determine what actually was going on. don't think there was anything more sophisticated than there was what i could detect a major difference in the way that different russian policy centers looked at syria. the one most well-known position is that of the foreign ministry, and which was headed by foreign minister lavrov, and referred to putin's statements that basically the russian federation was not waiting until assad and

willing to negotiate, and it seemed as if we were heading into another round of these negotiations after president assad was so rigid at the moscow talks in april. but besides those statements from the ministry of foreign affairs we had a very different narrative and that was coming from the ministry of defense, and they were outlined at the two conferences i attended, and there have been a variety of articles out there, and basically the way it was outlined on a number of pour point presentations on the internet and i encourage you to look at them -- is, one, the post cold world war has been dominated by one power, which anna talk about. two, and i think this goes back actually not just this year but two years -- that the problem is not the arar spring per se. the problem was the u.s. response to the arab spring, and

that this response to a're spring was part of a -- what was described on the slides as a policy of color revolutions. and they basically function as the following. these color revolutions get people to fight each other domestically, the military is used to shoot people of their own country and not a for invader, and that overall, it was a very low-cost way of creating unstable because in the middle of this mix suddenly the united states would ask for a u.n. security council revolution for intervention. this is the intellectual background to real concerns about u.s. intervention in libya. the third part of the argument was that these bases, these broken states where these color revolutions are going on, either, a., create illegitimate government, like in the case of ukraine, or, b., terrorists -- long-term terrorist safe havens,

and this fundamentally -- the ministry of defense outlined not in the interests of russia or the international community. it's that point that they moved then to a proproscriptive and this was referred to as military to military cooperation, basically helping sovereign states shoot your way out of these crises. so, this notice exactly new, not exactly in -- the assad regular anytime has been doing this for some time. basically the argue. was that the basis of intersense should be on -- intervention should be on the case of the sovereign state except in ukraine because the protests were a coup. if you're trying to square syria and russia and ukraine policies, it's based on that. they sigh the assad regime as

legitimate, and the government in kiev is illegitimate. all based on how power was taken. i joked at the time that i guess they never observed an assad regime election before. in any case, this division in russian policy circles were for son identified by two individuals, some nope to this odden. one was the russian academy of sciences, vitali a well known figure, has been to washington a number of times. he was in the military of defense in terms of putting together the conferences. the other intellectual who backed up the, seems the ministry of defense's arguments is of that -- from the institute of middle east studies, well known figure the reason why i say he is backing the ministry of defense positions is because during this year's conference

the deputy defense minister called on him from the audience to give a small speech, and during the speech he said that the problem was not the arar spring but a rather the united states' reaction to the arab spring. out of this intellectual and policy disscours the ministry of defense's view has prepaid and thus we have a significant shift in russia-syria policy with deep implications to the conflict and the middle east as a whole. so, in terms of -- i know we'll get into this in the question and answer session as well -- in terms of constraints, i think we have now pretty serious impediment to the western and regional strategy, to place military pressure on assad in order to induce political concessions that leads to asad's departure. i can't see president assad becoming significantly more flexible now given this intervention, especially -- i'm a big believer after living in

syria for a long time, people only make choices when they have to, and have to face a dilemma. don't think assad faces a dilemma of losing power and the community doesn't as well. so that creates some complications. two, in terms of constraints, great power intervention in syria now makes this i think a global crisis. not that it one before. many of us argued about that. and this is where we get into the recent discussions between russian ministry of defense and the pentagon over what are called deconflation because of the real risk of the military -- united states or anyone el el could ruin into conflict with russian forces and that could lead to military conflict if not kept in check and also complicates diplomacy on syria because verifies that washington

and moscow are on very different pages in terms of the end state in syria. the discussion of whether they see the conflict differently, that's over inch terms of opportunities, russia, like iran, who is also intervened in syria, i think they're now very -- i think they are wedded to bashar al-assad and the regime whether they like it or not. once you get involved in the kind of capabilities that jeff was outlining it's difficult to pull back without significant embarrassment and other implications. now, during this, it is possible that they could bring their influence to bear on assad if the russian position in syria were called into question or under attack be some forces that -- or operations that jeff downlead, talking about jihadis graph iting toward the russian forces. it's hard to see the russians not escalating. the question is, if there is any

daylight between -- in terms of russian thinking between assad and the syrian regime, russia talks about avoiding state collapse, but essentially we're talking here about the partial preservation of the syrian regime, and this is where it's not clear. from iranian circle outside hear the regime is an inverted. you remove the capstone and it falls apart. i its unclear if the row russians see it the same way. some want to preserve the regime at the expense of assad and his family. others fear the way the regime is constructed is indeed -- makes it galvanized or makes it -- gives structure that resists a peaceful transition. i think russian intervention will not end the war, but there could be a silver lining. russia could help stabilize some areas under the regime's control in order to avoid the

injureddist take over of damascus. i'm. no say they're going to take over damascus, i always doubted that. but on the bright side, if the united states is worriedes less bass damascus falling to jihaddist, perhaps they, work on stabilizing other parts of syria under the opposition control and that might be a good thing. last but not least, i think that russia's intervention on behalf hoff bashar al-assad means that syria will be partitions for the foreseeable future if not permanently. iranian and russian logic is to prop up the assad regime in the west but either -- i don't think -- i aggrieve with jeff -- i don't think they're able to commit the kind of soreses that would retake all of syrian territory. in discussions about isis, i often ask the question, what force is going to go goo into

the euphrates valley and run out the isis forces of the question is can we all find a force that can do that i think we're years away from that and unfortunately i see many black days ahead in the syrian war. thank you very much. >> thank you, andrew. some good news? >> good news in syria? okay. so, we are technical problem. so, -- [inaudible] -- we can imagine what we have been -- explaining that they are in

syria to fight jihadis. and group to the branch in syria. revolution inside all of the opposition to russia is -- we can fight them. consider bash schad al-assad except that the army to give back all the country. but i don't think that putin wants to involve this army in a new afghanistan. i think that the russian world is to protect the coastal region and to act bar shall al-assad in keeping syria -- but not to get back all syria because i

think -- i don't think -- because of the problem. so, i have most of the -- nothing in syria, the sunni population is two-thirds of the population. slight difference. you also kurdish about -- [inaudible] -- [inaudible] christian and other on the best, and all syria is

sunni. so, is one percent russian troops inside syria, find people to stop him, i don't think kurdish want to -- why not. but in the arab population they will not find anybody to support them. [inaudible] syrian army. -- because assad is controlling west part of syria because in this area they are the minorities. should be the next target of another offensive. bashar al-assad is to continue

providing syrian people support. when explaining his army was tired, and lacked fuel. that is why government looked -- [inaudible] last june i was in -- and people were really afraid. the evening -- we can hear the rocket noise and cheering -- [inaudible] at the east of latakia, and i think look at latakia -- in june, people --

[inaudible] -- because latakia not exactly stronghold. the city is divided between -- and sunni. 2010, about 60%, 40% sunni and the other christians. the city between latakia on the turkish border, the population is sunni, and also it was -- many religions speaking turnyear -- turkish in the area, and of course this syrian issue are -- [inaudible] the men are fighting against the syrian armies. moreover you have 300,000

refugees in the lat -- latakia province. [inaudible] -- province 800,000 people. so 300,000 refugees, -- [inaudible] is sunni and we know that there is families, the men are fighting and the families out in latakia, and latakia, very huge threat, huge fear of those, does it mean if -- people

from different -- [inaudible] -- it's like this that the syrian army -- because in fact since few months people from daesh -- [inaudible] -- day -- -- fighting to contain the daesh factor, and daesh fighter going out from the houses to protect the city. is working? okay.

[inaudible] empty because you are -- damascus -- more easy for the otherwise to get the armies, the christians and -- so religions -- so, a bit -- [inaudible] this is the sect in syria, you can see the minority mostly on the west part of syria, and with where the syrian

army is located, you can see there is a very clear difference between syrian army and mostly sunny, daesh controlling. this is latakia, the city is clearly divided in two parts. at least -- like everywhere in syria, the area is where the people -- [inaudible] -- this the map of the -- yellow and -- [inaudible] -- threat to latakia city.

two months about the -- [inaudible] facility, can see the decline of the otherwise -- facility, that's why also empty in the mountains because otherwise are making operation in comparison, -- [inaudible] children and women, and if they are out, 10% of the population-christian fighters, sure, it's a 20 year will be no more altogether minority. and in comparison with the

demography of the sunni changed, the people -- you have to change the people. refugees to burn -- push out five or six million people. you can revamp -- [inaudible] why -- concentrated on -- in latakia, develop the education in latakia, because he knows he is -- control syria, but the

consequence of this social movement is when you are -- [inaudible] it's a problem if complain because his army lack of fuel, because there is no -- anymore -- [inaudible] not to work in the military. and in august 2013, -- [inaudible] -- these of lat -- latakia, and about 200 people,

women and children. it's shame is the story because he was not able to put it in hungary, and the otherwise say to bashar al-assad we don't want another -- be sure what you would have a lot of -- let mass discuss, aleppo, and come back to protect the population. that's why even in spring, when fall, many, many say to assad, you must protect the coast because if you don't protect the coast, we will who will protect you? anyway, we abandon damascus and come back to the coast, and decided to build a new militia,

as a shell of the coast, not succeed very much, and i think it's a good reason for mr. putin to send troops in latakia because there is a fear that latakia fall in the arm of the rebels because the syrian army is clearly unable alone to protect latakia. and damascus homes are protected by the hezbollah, but iran, because it's strategically very important for the hezbollah and iran to be in indianapolis discuss to be close to the -- to be in the area of -- to protect what i call the hezbollah, and latakia is not so strategic for iran.

it's not strategic for russia because military base in -- also russian navy and the international airport of latakia, and the russian want also to have submarine base [inaudible] -- and i think that mr. putin want to do in the syrian coast what the did in georgia, to have a foot in the region, and will not try to invade all of syria because it would be useless for him. probably it would like to help the syrian army to protect

aleppo, because aleppo is completely surrounded by -- i don't know if you want to enter in the game with the kurdish. the kurdish want to have this continuum from tigris, and to know succeed to joan kobani, and still an area between kobani and -- it's not a kurdish territory. arab sunni. the kurdish want to join all this territories, and i don't know if putin will help them to

succeed because is not very agree with this strategy, but the only mean to destroy the syrian opposition -- military opposition in the north of syria, it's to close the border. you cannot successfully counterintelligence policy if the border is open so you can use the kurdish to close the border if turkey still continue to support the military opposition. so, i think that russia have two scenario in syria. one which is the syrian coast, russia protect, and offensive scenario which is offensive

around aleppo. damascus is under the iran umbrella. latakia will be under russian umbrella. russian troops, i think latakia could fall or could be divided in the sunni rebel area and otherwise area, and if latakia fall it will be of course less easy to protect the territory to create this military -- like i said, it's sure that you will have soldier, many officer, refuse to fight in damascus and

aleppo, and will come back to the village to protect their families, because it was very clear in june, the people that i meet, say we don't want anymore. thank you. >> very good. thank you very much. actually, it's -- your description of demography was fascinating, not least because if you read or listen to what putin had to say today, there was a pretty powerful echo where -- in his discussion of how you deal with refugee problem coming from syria. putin said, the way to deal with refugee problem is to give comprehensive assistance, economic assistance, especially to the people who won't abandon their country, namely, give economic assistance to the

people lift -- left in syria because everyone else abandoned them. making syria strong is the way to make sure you don't have any further refugees leave. of course this plays into the assad strategy you referred. to let me just pose a couple of questions and then open the floor to your questions. jeff, could you just give us a very quick comment on precisely how russian military deployments restrict the potential for american or western ideas that have been floating around, including the creation of safe zones. >> sure. first of all, if the russians begin flying outside of latakia with combat aircraft and so on it's going to impinge on the u.s. able to fly over northern

syria, unless there's a serious decon flix. if the russians choose to start triking in northern syria, for example, some of those targets could be in areas where the coalition flies and that would force the united states to react to it in some way or maybe it would simply acquiesce. the united states -- depending on how well decon flix goes the united states michigan have to change the tactic the way it operates and supports flights over syria, the environment with russian aircraft in it would be much more dangerous or potentially dangerous, doesn't mean they would be fight but something the u.s. has to think about. on the ground, if russian forces become involved on the ground, there is the risk, depending on what happens, of course, buff its in aleppo or some other places, say, around in dara or

southwest or indianapolis discuss, then you have a situation where russian forces could be fighting against u.s. supported forces. cia supported forces primarily. if the russian are striking under their broads def notification who is to terrorist and the united states is support thing people, what happens is the u.s. government going to authorize strikes against russian forces or take other kinds of actions to disrupt russian military efforts. these are the kind of things you could see. may not happen but the potential is there. >> and just one more for you, jeff. can you say a word about this announcement of military coordination -- i'm sorry -- intelligence coordination between iran, iraq, syria, and

russia? >> with the exception of iraq, i think this kind of coordination has been going on forever effectively. who their partners and many things, they talk to one another. syria and iran effectively have an alliance, military kind of alliance. russians are involved in that and also includes hezbollah. so the fact they're coordinating this -- talking to one another about intelligence isn't really surprising or even new. the context is somewhat new. the iraqi context is different. have to see what comes of that. but the issue becomes really difficult, if it moves beyond intelligence cooperation into military operations. then you have another situation where the u.s. and the russians could be flying in the same or adjacent air space.

there's a possibility of conflicts there as well. so it's a complicating factor to me but not a lightning bolt that's going to radically change the situation in my view. >> andrew, in his speech today, president obama referred to the process of managed transition, and invited the russians and the iranians to be partners in helping to bring about this outcome. how would you characterize the state of u.s. diplomacy on this issue? >> i mean, i think that it's not a secret that there's a fundamental disagreement between iran and russia on one hand and the united states on the other about what a transition looks like, because there's severe disagreement on what a stable end state would look like. with the iranians and the russians on the one hand saying

that assad has to stay because of the structure of the regime, and that this would be the basis for some sort of preservation of syrian institutions, which putin talked about during his speech, and this would allow through this process over time to use military force, combined with economic incentives to put the pieces of syria back together again. obama was very clear. he said we are -- we cannot go to the status quo and to try to look at the way things were before because of bashar's choices during the war, and the syrian opposition agrees with him on that and most syrian does because he only controls 20% of his territory. i do not think there's any agreement on this whatsoever. i think there's some agreement on the threats come out of syria. there is some talk in the last few days about assad going later rather than sooner, in terms of the timing and the mechanism,

and i think that was put forward by secretary kerry but threat not new. that's been floated out there for a few months. i don't think there's really -- anything has changed the divisions in terms of an end state. that severely complicates any kind of diplomatic effort on syria unless of course you're willing to accept partition, and that is something that the united states refuses to accept for obvious reasons. beyond the security reasons. but absent some sort of common ground on the end state, i think we'll have a divided syria for some time. >> speaking of the concept of partition, fabrice mentioned a met -- met terrainan -- does that resonate in the russian context and how the russians may be viewing what the opportunities and what the end goal might be here? >> this certainly resonates very well with how the russians view

the creme lip's approach to international affairs. this idea of creating frozen conflict in one form or another is consistent with putin's approach to international affairs. so, i think what -- it's interesting to me is in my conversations, especially with the liberal opposition, they keep waiting for the to say something, to give a little bit more pushback on russia, and they keep hoping that, for example, one person i spoke to recent live privately said, america won't have a russia hezbollah alliance. that just can't happen. so, it resonates, but the liberal elites are hoping there will be some pushback for putin in this regard. >> okay, let's turn the floor over to you to your questions. start over here with robert freedman on my right and we'll work around. ...

>> >> i can see the russians getting them sells more and more into combat whether

they want to are not. >> at this point we have not seen any serious attack. there has and a couple of reports nothing that i have seen anything serious. it may well have been but it does then the russians will respond there. to have the attack helicopters so a the first responses air power on the grounds it is the regime forces. it is very likely it will embed the ground forces with machine troops. i am disinclined at this point that they will go one

search and destroy a missions. given the buildup of with satellite mistreat - - imagery is a battalion to be reinforced so i think there will respond carefully but if it becomes a problem the russians will respond. it is not first and foremost, a political force. >> here on the left. >> syria press secretary at the british embassy.

and before we came into this event as suggested launching his own campaign as the primary allies in that connection. in your view does it genuinely belief in the analytical way that they can somehow manage the situation that i still can somehow wind of four? were the british government tuesday we will never defeats isil that it is about lot setting precedent. deep down to daisy isil for

j really think it is that victory in syria? >> i could take a stab first. it is hard to tell think the conversations that i have had so that is the basis so now that is the rhetorical position because it goes with the vagal structure and the legal reasoning that putin outlined today. but with the every tsa looked at it as a dividing country so they see their

interest in syria. that is primarily in the western part of the country that keeps damascus from catastrophic collapse but it doesn't solve the isis problem. if russia was not intend to there would be on the hook. i think they have accepted taken only influence part of syria not all of it. >> it is a little hard to tell based of the rhetoric to be clearly convinced there behind most ills of the world. >> but before they turned violent a resonated and how

that could happen to him. and then to preserve himself as well. even the approval ratings. but the kremlin has a realistic approach that if you saw the interview on "60 minutes" whenever asked a few questions are and syria or ukraine and said tell me what you think to support the opposition and what will happen after words? and then talk about the border to say you have a presence in europe so for him they match whenever we do he has to do as well and that is the calculus.

>> so based on serious day are not to win in the sense of conquering syria but to fight the regime. and i think they have a fair chance because of the military balance with the dynamics of though war i think they have a reasonable prospect of securing that. my sense of russian military is not that great but i think they're careful with the military force. they have a long tradition to think about operations and military strategy.

so i think they have a good notion how to do this. they probably thought it through. >> retired state department officer. we talk about the of complexion of the united states and american forces falling prime minister that audion whose visit to talk with president putin they announced they would put together a day complexion mechanism so my question is to you or a new nose wish to speculate how such a mechanism might work and sent with russia primary purpose to support the a sod regime could you speculate

on potential friction the what has been talked about to put a coordination cell inside the ministry of defense to do the deed complexion that is the means we saw one report that says that has been done. that is of logical thing to do to put the officers with the communications package and the complexion that way but it think they will find that perfectly useful but the second part gets to the real rub of what could have been.

is really is like to go around syria to bomb places where they think weapons may be moving from in or out there also like to bomb the syrian positions so in my mind the russian presence eventually be chosen a more airstrikes in the province they will not say okay come bomb 10 miles from our facility because it makes you feel good or you thank you have reason so my sense is that is out that there be very cautious to fight the russians or a engaged them but their real situation is what happens in southwest of damascus especially if

iranians are conducting attacks on israel for code to they provide any cover or not? my sense is probably not. remember that agent history when the israelis and the egyptian shot it out and they killed the soldiers inside egypt. i think they are reluctant to repeal that to come to fruition. >> bed just one more sentence about that the complaint has to do with a ration of weapons to syria that are diverted or sent to hezbollah and they denied that the syrians say they have the end users certificates but the

israelis have good evidence they're sitting with hezbollah. there is a lot of room for back-and-forth to ensure the security of these weapons. melissa. >> i but like to ask the other side of the question. to the russians really think they can prevail and we take all the territory. the flip side is do they deliver the regime? it is the anti-a isil coalition are they capable to deliver the other pieces

of a complex political landscape? >> easy question. . . . .the opposition. be honest. of a giant problem however the opposition has spent going along with our diplomacy most recently. so it is almost a fixed player so the opposition ability