for russia.the diffence >> in terms of overcoming ace fr a legacy i think thes flaws difference is i do thinkkraine this leadership has supplies isn they have a model it is moving towards a of market economy with those defects of corruption can they move that? but it has an easier, une rea challenge it doesn't have the aspirations and to be a seee great or regional power. . . ukrainian elite.

they will still aspire to be in all european state. they would like to be a member of the european union, understand that it will be very reluctant. for the 1st time ever you now have a majority of ukrainians saying they would like to be a member of nato which is something that is not going to happen for the foreseeable future. not prepared to put them on a membership track. you have polls showing 50 percent saying we want to be a nato. being invaded by another country will do that. aside from that they do not have the aspirations you have the kremlin to be a major player on the international stage. designing a set ofa set of

security paradigms, you rule out the more and versus and turning once. >> this question please. let's take two at a time. one behind the other. on my right right there. then behind also. >> good afternoon, gentlemen. thank you for an interesting discussion. my question is on something that many people in this room probably are thinking about because it is not the hot news of the day, but in america's own backyard over the last ten years we have seen russian engagement and latin america. i have been wondering what you think russian strategic goals are and where you think -- what you think russia might do in the next ten years and latin america. thank you. >> if you get in the microphone to the woman right behind you. >> former usaid, ukraine.

you have presented three very rational value free models of what might happen in russia, but it's something that you are only barely eluding two. the fact that russia is the major plutocracy, a huge drain on resources they enrich themselves. i would like you to comment on where that fits into your picture. >> do you want to start this round? >> in general i oppose corruption. to the extent that corruption reduces the amount of research, i can live with that. on where russia is going and latin america, i tend to put that in the category of its

mischiefmaking.mischiefmakin g. it is designed to because. and for a long period from 1991 until1991 until 2005, 2006 the russian navy was not going to cuba or venezuela. and that. that was basically because they did not have the money to go that far. greater flows from the russian government and they begin to look more to the military and begin to be able to buy the fuel. and you saw the presumption that was something that was knew. but if you went to the 70s and 80s part of it is tit for tat. if the russians are unhappy about the fact that the american navy enters the black sea and visits georgia, visits ukraine,

they see that as there backyard. the differencesthe differences those countries don't want to be seen in russia's backyard. i don't think it's something the us military spends a huge amount of time on. the russian press sounding. we now, our aircraft fly along the east coast of the united states. and it's kind of a weird article. broadcasting are bragging about the fact that you're flying bombers and being escorted, most bomber pilots i know, it's a bad thing.

>> good response by steve on the latin america question. i don't think russia has the soft power capability or the hard power capability any particular great concern to us. the tit for tat mischiefmaking. i don't think it's a popular term to explain. motion motives, behaviors, leadership. it does not make sense to me i will simply refer you to the book written. we have a very different explanation of what motivates people and what the concerns are. they.out and this is part of the reason for the misunderstanding, the

corruption is extremely important in russia. it's not clip talker see. it is literally used as a means of control, people command especially those with economic interest to deal with. it's a mafia stylea mafia style thing. you get people to commit crimes and have control over them. i won't go any further because it's in the book. >> two more questions. >> gentlemen, lawrence group i have two projects. what i would like to offer, what do you think of rt? i was flipping through it and there was less night. is that putin's mouthpiece? >> go over here. >> i've been doing it, too. here. where do you see russia

going with the new annexation of crimea? now that there connected, what do you see, using that as well as a populace? newfound patriotism. >> take a brief crack at the question. down the road from my colleagues. i've been there a few times. you may know that on the ukraine issue i have a position that is slightly more tolerable in the russian space and steve's which means that rt treats me a little better perhaps been some americans, but is still some of the most challenging media experiences you could ever want to have. is a very strong point of you.

you have to always ask, are you getting through, being given the opportunity to express your disagreement? or is there a tramplinga traveling out of that? it is sometimes off online. i will report back to. it is always tough. it is still worth it. again, you are being pushed. the other american guests were on the show they have a view of us seems consistent. >> sure. a different view. i do not think that it's a serious media outlet.

serious, insightful, and thoughtful person. i think he confers credibility there are experts on russia. >> i think it gives a little bit more credibility than they deserve. the annexation, the annexation of crimea was usually popular in russia. again, crimea was the only part of ukraine and the way it was taken over by little green men the way the

kremlin refers to them. it was bloodless. they made a decision not to oppose it. in addition the ten or 12,000 russian sailors and service people, there are also eight or 10,000 ukrainian military. and so if you fight a quick six-day campaign you don't use a lot of military, no casualty, that will be popular. but i'm not sure it has wide implications. the question of russia's involvement in eastern ukraine just go and look at social media and you have ukrainians, that establishes the russian military.

graham phillips, reporter who's widely seen as pro- russian. the men a story about the attack. and behind him i three tanks and those three tanks, the shepherds of being stained. they have reactive armor, gun sites. you have ever been in a romanian military. last week there was a picture of a rocket launch system only in the russian military. interesting thing about the russian kremlin, to this day they deny that there is any russian military presence in eastern ukraine which shows they very quickly understand and the kremlin that there is no positive gain to build outing crimea by going to

grab additional territory or even admitting their involvement. >> it's a good one. how we react to the media. one could do an analysis of what to use. all kinds of state run media all over the world. i think it comes down to what you as an individual see, not just the journalists, the individual journalists integrity, but those are on the show. pretty much any russian media especially when i know what the context is and what they want to get out of me. really nice interviews let me talk forever.

i got my.across. it was clearly what i really thought. i have to say, this happens in the us. newspapers, broadcast media. what you do then, there on my blacklist. i have a folder on my e-mail and bad people. i'm just not going to deal with them anymore. the problem with the russian situation, so blatantly so and is not enough that you don't like the journalism. you just can't trust what you are saying and doing will not be exploited. i can see the point of you about even appearing. accurately relating what you said, bigger context for that. i don't think anyone has

ever told us do or don't appear for any meeting. >> i had one footnote. hopefully reducing the potential for monkey business. also part of what i tried to do is be clear about differences but also to remind the russian viewer of why i think that there should be a basis for us russian collaboration if we can get beyond these silly followers which i am emphatic and attribute primarily to president clinton. or how we collaborated on iran sanction policies, to policies, to remind people that we have a basis in the history of cooperation and if we can stop they can stop. maybe we can get back to that.

whether that messages of any utility or not i don't know. so here in the six throw an image woman over here on the outside. >> i am from afghanistan. my question relates to the recent happenings in afghanistan where the war is slowly shifting from the southern to the northern borders of central asia. one theory would be that. after russia's annexation and ukraine situation, the west particularly nato in theand the united states was on the back foot. this is sort of the response where the united states and nato allies are allowing this shift in geography. the taliban/ias il are able to disrupt or somewhat potentially destabilize central asia by being based

there. and the recent one week fall was one of the indications. i will be interested in hearing what your thoughts would be. would such a thing be possible? does it make any sense? do you see a logic in that narrative? >> over here. >> i am from egypt. i want to ask about now syria airstrike, russia airstrike in syria. and the egyptian which are supposedly -- egypt is allied to us, but the support russia. and this is official stance of egypt now. and they are saying that it is because the us, it does

not exist in the middle east that's why there filling the gap. so what do you think of the rusher will the middle east? >> we will just see. >> hello. my question,question, when we were talking earlier about the differences between see structure and reagan off russia, it appears to me that in ten or 20 years if we are observing this we may not be able to tell the difference between the two. my fear is that the us would see a reagan off russia and interpret it as a deceased russia and then we would respond, is calculate, and eventually force a conflict or for some type of confrontation were russia

then goes into deceased russia even though they did not want to. how would we be able to tell the difference? >> i just want to thank you for that question. it begins to tie the pieces of the discussion together. one of the implications for american policy, thinking of these possible russian futures. >> russian motivations in syria. there are several motivations. one is russia wants to support us sought. they do not want to see him go down as a result of the conflict. part of that is because if you are sitting there in moscow you don't have your e-mail -- very many national allies. second, to the extent that

your model is worried about color revolution, things like that, this is seen as another western inspired plot to bring on a country. a 3rd part, the russians have asked the questions. if the sod goes what comes after. and that's not reassuring to moscow. another part of russia's involvement syria is trying to maintain the sum total. they may calculate the united states is trying to reduce its footprint in the middle east and may see an opportunity to increase their presence. syria really is the only entry point that they have. those motivations, just one brief comment on reagan off. >> how about afghanistan. >> that's more than afghanistan question. on reagan off, this is where

i tend to see disease is a better model than reagan off if you go back to 1983 when the embassy was bombed beirut and then you have the horrible attack which killed 200 plus american marines, basically president reagan made the decision that this is not worth it can be pulled off. but we basically back down. i'm not sure vladimir putin would do that, and this is the risk to rush in syria, well i am sure they are taking the necessary steps, the ground force presence, my guess is the current numbers, it's force protection. they want to secure their bases. what happens if isys or another opposition group mounts an attack, succeeds and there are 30 or 40 russian casualties? i don't think putin does a reagan and says this isn't worth it. i think he doubles down.

they may go in with the intention of limited action. events may driveevents may drive them in part because of the way mr. putin looks at the world to a much deeper, much more expensive, much more costly involvement than they originally anticipated. >> thank you. >> okay. i want to link a little bit to the question them mark asked and the one about the idea that russia's filling a gap that the united states leaves. because the question of distinguishing to me between these two scenarios, and similar enough on the surface, they could easily be confused. reagan off, big military, mainly for show, mainly for purposes other than actually using it to achieve direct military goals of conquering territorial people whatever, and the other one which is

literally doing exactly that so maybe same size military, same for structure, whatever problem with a different motivation and mentality behind them. here, i think i will come back to something i said before. it's even more difficult to distinguish between the two because i think that it is at least possible to think about some of very blatantly aggressive over actions on the part of the russians now or in the future that are really not designed to achieve what everyone is claiming, that they want to take over the mideast arrival the us in the mideast, establish a stronghold in the mideast for obviously challenge the united states as a new international order, us leadership, or start a knew cold war, marco rubio, challenge the us leadership. rather, is it possible that

what is going on, including crimea, including syrian out are these almost bluff like demonstrations we are big and back and you have to listen to us. we tried to tell you. we tried to tell you all the time. you can't make these decisions about nations in theirand there leaders and regime change in stuff without thinking about the consequences, especially without thinking about how it might impact someone else so we have to send the message. for instance, in the case of syria, here is what happens when a country goes around and do something without worrying about the other guy. how do you like it? now we are all obsessed. russia's going to screw us up in the mideast and syria. it is basically that message , how do you like that? but you are not intending to

commit big forces. they cannot. russia can't save a sod. they can't defeat ii sil. there is nothing that they can do in my opinion that we have failed to do. all they can do is make people kind of think that and get all worried about it. crimea, nice, quick little operation, grenada like. do something and get support. however, he miscalculated. what steve said is important. in the reagan off option, and the russian context you're trying to do things that show, give people the impression you have all this power at home and abroad with the potential for miscalculation and misperception, how are we supposed to no that that was just a demonstration. excuse me. we did we did not mean to conquer half the ukraine.

people interpret this in a way, you are being too smart which is the real risk. but then maybe we should get into the question, what can we do to avoid these sort of misperceptions? >> i agree with that very important. what can the russian military do in syria? where is the silver bullet? what capabilities to the russians bring to the game that the us military has not been able to apply? but that seems to suggest the whole risk of his venture, if they can't predict success than most people think they will fail, they are starting off on a doomed trail where it is potentially a big risk. >> let's say that they are just trying to force us to act and don't intend to solve or to succeed in syria so of course they are intention in that scenario

is they will never even push it to that point. but it can easily be trapped in a situation where it did not work and we have to go further and further. like you say, the put mentality is not to give up. a great story in our book about him learning lessons of life one of which is to start a fight don't ever back down. it's kind of dangerous in itself. ..

so i'm hoping to pull it back or see the russians put back as that would be one way to sort of give some specificity to these

different images we created and linked into current events. if reagan, by the way something we haven't gotten into his detail on how to think about the future of ukraine brewery have different points of view. in terms of thinking how we handle you can't -- ukraine crisis and what kind of security strategy we think about to the extent we can steer the russians towards a reagan model i think there's utility for that. that's a different conversation for a different day. my last comment however is on afghanistan and i don't think that we are trying to encourage our enemy to move northward and ultimately put pressure on the russian or parts of the soviet union. what we saw in kunduz and by the way quite the tragedy and there have been a lot of them in last week including most recently the hospital bombing. that's something i've criticized and the tragic loss of 10

americans and jalalabad of the c-130 crash. despite that we are seeing the afghan start to take back a good chunk of kunduz so don't give up yet. there's room to be at least hopeful here because this is not another mosul. there has been an immediate counterattack in there some reason to believe that's partially successful but kunduz fell on the first place because of local politics. politics in kunduz were a mass and my colleague is there right now in afghanistan and i'm sure she will write about this when she's back to she's been warning for a long time, she knows condi is better than i i do and this is a region where there has been a lot of militia actors competing for influence in ways that strengthen the overall government. a historic karchi creation is roughly a third bashed in the group from which they are said

to hill. as a population base and if there started cherlin mischief it's a clever way of using force we should respect the taliban military decision-making. i am hopeful that they have gotten more than they more than they reckon with in the afghan army or police are going to do a better job than i counted on so i remain hopeful on that front. i think we have time for one final question which will use as a way to wrap up. the gentleman in the blue shirt lease. just one question please. >> i would like to go back to mr. sub three's comment on ukraine and link, i want to ask if the u.s. and the european union decided to provide massive economic assistance to ukraine no military assistance but in support of reforms in the e.u. also made sure that e.u. membership or ukraine is far in

the future and not something that is likely to occur sand. how would that affect russia today? would it make them feel more besieged? >> to be there if you want to start back? >> i think it's an interesting question because it gets to water. subject is in ukraine? the kremlin did not have a grand strategy. a lot of this is making it up as he goes. crimea and the aftermath of yanukovich leaving and the appointment of a new government as is a target of opportunity but i don't think it lays all this out. you do not have a russian interest in acquiring that territory. here's there's a brief period where they talked about the southern 40% of ukraine breaking

away. they quickly became disabused of that notion when they saw there was no public support in ukraine. so what the russians have been doing is using it as a way to destabilize the government and make it harder for the government to succeed. the question is could you get the russians to change that decision and in terms of the objectives that moscow articulates a year ago he could have seen the basis for a win-win solution. poroshenko was talking about power and talking about status to russian line which. he said, he wasn't saying no nato ever but he was prepared to take off the table and he said we are prepared to have a dialogue and talk about how do you ensure russia doesn't have a negative impact on ukrainian russian economic relations. there was no interest shown by

the kremlin a year and half ago picking up on that. and that leads me to conclude that the russians again destabilization and i don't know we have seen a change today. certainly the good thing out of eastern ukraine is a sense of timber there has been a real cease-fire and maybe we will see in the next 100 days whether withdrawing heavy equipment what that will do. there is reason for skepticism. one of the things that's been talked about when putin and poroshenko were in paris on friday was this question of local elections. the two agreements a local elections will be held in accordance with ukrainian law and have the occupation authorities standing up on their own elections. now there were some hope the

french president would say we hope we can postpone the elections but we think we can achieve it as per the accordance with ukrainian law with the observers and president putin spokesman went out and said well yeah president putin is going to send an envoy because he wants to talk about this. that's just the refuge. if russia wanted the election to be held in accordance with ukrainian law russia has the way, the influence and the power to me could happen immediately. and so my guess is we are still seeing the russians goal which is destabilization of ukraine. maybe they are less focused on military and maybe at this point they don't need it but i'm not sure we have seen a change in russian objectives. my last point would be because of what happened over the course of the last year and a half and the hardening of public opinion in ukraine to things like we

want to join nato that may create a difficulty in president poroshenko in terms that might allow a win-win solution. it's probably closer than i was 16 or 17 months ago. >> steve is such an expert on ukraine and i'm not on the 11 hand that question is so hypothetical i don't even know that i can begin to answer. the idea that there would be massive amounts of economic assistance from the e.u. and from the united states and ukraine is so remote that i just don't know. think about it. there's no way they are we are going to do that. let's assume that it happens or it was a real possibility. i don't think putin the economic stability of ukraine is any particular threat. the military and the political

threat and the eastern ukraine situation is where the heart of it is but the russians have plenty of lovers to destabilize ukraine economically that they haven't used. but that's not really in their interest that they will be employed if they think that's necessary to prevent a literal threat that ukraine might join nato or sanctioning of missiles in ukraine that they would regard as a threat. >> i will say one last parting conclusion this will have to be at which is that i would like to hope that we can increase the odds of a minimalist or pro-western russia with some kind of dig new idea on european architectures and again there's disagreement on the panel here. not everybody would agree with

this but i would like to see along with russia they guarantee the sovereignty and security of sensual europe as part of the deal by which those countries would not join nato, not now and not in the future and this would be conditional on russia verifiably upholding its end of the bargain and i would like to see that kind of an idea considered. i think the chances are that it might increase the odds of a more benign russia that we write about in our article but obviously i'm risking provoking a new conversation just as we are about to finish up so i will stop there. thank you all very much for being here. [applause]

next a look at terrorism in russia and their current strategy to defeat isis. the national defense university associate professor elena pokalova spoke at the wilson center for an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone. thank you so much for joining us.

i'm the director at the cannon institute and i'm very pleased to be able to introduce elena pokalova this morning. before i do though a couple of housekeeping reminders. tomorrow tuesday october 6 at 9:00 a.m. we are going to have an event which we are doing jointly called the future of europe's eastern policy chances and challenges and this is a report on a project with the system supporter called europe and the east in 2030 so it's examining different trajectories for europe's possible engagement with the neighborhood which so far has been anonymously successful so clearly that will be a celebration. it's going to be an expert panel discussing these potential scenarios and reporting on the product of this project.

thursday this week october 8 at 9:30 we have an event called assessing the state of the russian media and this is a great opportunity when we happen to have three big meetings in the world of reporting in russia and about russia so we wanted to make absolute certain to get them altogether for discussion of the state of the russian media. adam cullison who was the moscow correspondent and a special investigative correspondent. a really good group of journalists in anchorage you to join us on thursday morning. without further ado that may start today's event, russia's war against terror at the north caucasus and beyond. we do have copies for sale out

front and she will inscribe it for you and write a conference a plan for dealing with terrorism on the front cover. i'm kidding. that's chapter 3. elena is associate professor of international security studies and this college of security affairs at the national defense university. her publications including the latest book have appeared far and wide including journalism on terrorism critical studies on terrorism studies on conflicts and terrorism and journal of -- studies. her ph.d. is in political science from kent state university where she wrote a dissertation on russia's war on terror and she has extensive experience working in russia including working on legislative products so without any further ado elena the floor is yours. >> thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you very much for being here and i would like to extend my thank you to the wolfman center for having me here. before i start i would like to say here i present ion views. they do not represent the views of the united states government department of defense or the national defense university. in my speech today i will talk a little bit about russia's terrorist threats and of course many are concerned about what putin is doing in syria how that is related to counterterrorism its declarations that he is willing to fight isis is a terrorist threat. we will get to that towards the end of the presentation but i wanted to cover really is the evolution of the terrorist threat in russia, russia's experiences with terrorism and russia's experiences with counterterrorism. i will hopefully speak for 20 or 30 minutes and then i will turn it over for questions and i'm looking forward to the discussion.

in russia most people with probably have had some kind of experience with terrorism and me included. that's why i am studying this topic and that is why i'm so interested in the topic and i still remember when in 1995 everyone was glued to their tvs because of the hostage crisis. in 2002 my aunt -- at the last minute she decided not to go to the theater but of course the reader became well-known to the rest of the world as the scene of the hostage crisis. later on i was working in moscow in 2003 and an explosion happened which was two blocks down the road from where i work. it cores every day taking the metro you had the threat of being blown up by a black widows

or other suicide terrorists that happened often in 2003 in 2004. based on those experiences or near experiences with terrorism i started looking into the threats and i have studied terrorism and counterterrorism in russia for over 10 years now. terrorism and in russia has evolved that not many people realize russia started terrorism well before the world became concerned that the threats after september 11. back in 91 when chechnya declared independence from the soviet union and then from russia to threat of terrorism became apparent when an insurgent horses and chechen separatists are using terrorism as a tactic against the russian forces to secure independence of chechnya. at the time that general who is

a secular general but at the same time as using islam as a force that consolidated the chechen forces in the fight against russia. it was in the early 90s that he actually declared jihad against russia and used the tactic of terrorism to confront the more superior forces of the russian federation. terrorism became a constant threat in russia and of course the first two major attacks happened in 95 and 96 with the hostage crisis. the more may be in the notorious case of terrorism in the first chechen war was the radiological terrorist attack. while in russia he wasn't perceived seriously but at the same time in 95 in november the

leader of chechens party secured the position of radiological substances and hit them in moscow. so this was one of the experiments with terrorism that he undertook then much later he was also the mastermind behind transformation of the terrorist threats that went from hostage crises to suicide attacks to radiological attacks. the employment of the black widows to the employment of converted russian -- and i will briefly talk about those as well. the chechen campaign, the first chechen campaign lasted from 94 to 96 and was over with de facto victory put the chechen fight. in 99 a wave of apartment bombings to lace in russia and

moscow. after that wave of apartment almonds the second counterterrorist operations in chechnya started and this time it was a counterterrorist operation against terrorists, supposedly was alleged ties with osama bin laden and al qaeda. in the second chechen conflict there were still major hostage crises. in 2002 it was the crisis in moscow and 2004 the islam hostage crisis in the school however in the second campaign terrorism started shifting and here you see for example the implementation of a tactic of suicide terrorism. the first suicide terrorist attack happened in november of of -- june, excuse me of 2000 where -- lou herself up and blew other people up.

this was a foreign tactic for the north caucasus. allegedly the tactic was implemented under or in mujahideen who came and joined the chechen and the north caucasus insurgency from afghanistan and other post-afghan complex from bosnia algeria and other places. another tack tick that transformed chechen terrorism and by chechen terrorism i refer to chechen terrorism but often it spread into the north caucasus so after 99 we are speaking about the insurgents in the north caucasus and it packed pickup terrorism implemented by the insurgent forces throughout the north caucasus and moscow and the rest of russia as well. another tactic that chechen mujahideen started implementing was the employment of women in conflict. for those of you familiar with jihad and the international

terrorist forces this is a new tactic in the chechen fighters pioneered this tack tick implying women and complex. the traditional world and islam is jihad for women is supporting fighters and providing for the fighters. and chechnya women became the active fighters and this tactic spread to moscow and later on groups such as al qaeda in iraq started implementing this tactic as well. another shift in the terrorist threat in russia was the conversion of adherence to radicalism and the employment of slavic solove fee and terrorist attacks. especially in moscow will be very hard due to the increased surveillance of security services it would be very hard to carry out a loan terrorist attack if you are from the north

caucasus because of their ethnic profile so they tactics the terrorist forces in implemented was using the slavs who look like anyone passing by in moscow and using them to carry out suicide attacks. since the mid-to thousands the vast majority of suicide attacks on the territory of russia had been the slavic effort for solipsism or russian wahhabism. these trends have been concurrent with the trend of islamization radicalization of jihad in the north caucasus. it became the center in the north caucasus that supported the chechen insurgency and then started supporting the insurgency toward the establishment of this islamic state in the north caucasus. today in origin late we speak

about the entire region of the north caucasus engulfed in an insurgency so the six and the bordering areas are under the influence of insurgencies and whether active or not there are caucasus that anticipate -- participating carry out attacks. at the time when terrorism struck russia, russia was not prepared to face the threat grade there was no counterterrorism legislation there were no counterterrorist to fight the threat. in the 90s during the first chechen war the threat was perceived as one of the consequences of the chechen war. the situation changed after the first chechen war. the russian government legislated the law in 1998 law on counterterrorism and that law contained illegal instrument for the russian forces to carry out counterterrorist operations

since 99 and so on. the counterterrorist operation in chechnya and the neighboring republics under this legislation. more counterterrorist innovation to place as the war progressed and as the terrorist operations progress. since 99 russia no longer implemented the solution that it used in the first chechen conference so there were no massive bombardments or ground operations as you see in the first chechen conflict. since 99 the russian administration has used more tactical targeting of the terrorist group in the north caucasus. instead of conscripts it has use contractors and targeted operations have become the symbol of terrorist operations.

so few compare counterterrorist operations from the second chechen to the second you see there is a lot of improvement. the names most associated with terrorism in russia. travel between russia and the neighboring republic georgia as a rush on in other countries have been secured so it's much more difficult today to travel and use those routes that they use before two channel terrorist elements and all the foreign aid many training camps in chechnya and the north caucasus have been eliminated. you might know that chechen forces in the north asus have used insurgents and terrorists suicide terrorists etc. so a lot of those have been deployed and eliminated. you can see the russian

counterterrorist attempt has been successful at certain points in an certain aspects. at the same time there is a big question of what is happening now, where the north caucasus are now and how it's all relevant to syria. despite the fact that the russian ports have been trying to stamp out chechen separatism islam must project for establishing a muslim state in the north caucasus this fight has been going on for close to 20 years now. we see the threat has not been eliminated. there still are insurgent factions in the north caucasus. there are still terrorist attacks in the north caucasus and beyond. you might have heard the big scare before the olympics when the terrorists insurgency declared they would do anything to undermine the olympics and prevent them from happening. you also might have seen that

the chechen conflict has had an impact on other places. for instance in ukraine when they ukraine conflict started in 2014 you saw chechen forces fighting on both sides of the ukrainian conflict. there were chechen forces who supported the pro-russian separatist. on the other side there were chechen forces fighting against the russians and there are several of the counterterrorist groups there are that have declared that they have been fighting against russia because that is what they have been doing for a long time so you might have seen the presence of the battalion. those are the chechen contentions fighting on the anti-separatist side in ukraine and of course the big question today is what are some of the north caucasus individuals doing in syria? what is the threat to russia and

why is russia getting involved in serious? some people are concerned is russia supporting bashar assad in syria or is russia trying to prove to the rest of the world that it is this a big power that foreign country still have to consider while implementing differing decisions. russia has real concerns about terrorism and ice is coming back to russia. a number of terrorists from the north caucasus have joined the syrian civil war since it started in 2011. some of these groups have declared that they are loyal to the caucasus emirate's establishes in the north caucasus under the leadership of of -- however some of these factions have joined isis and pledged allegiance to isis and are fighting in the name of isis. moreover some of those mujahideen fight against syria have declared that they will be coming back to russia, that they

will be striking against russia and some of them have started coming back to russia and this is a growing concern for the russian government and for the russian security services. ..

>> >> also eliminated april and august 2015. o last insurgent leader who had some level of control the organization since then is undergoing a lot of transitions. currently we're not speaking of a unified body but instead of lots of different factions and fighting among them. even in 2010 to be in different groups when the leader of the foreign forces

of the north caucuses attempted to take over the caucuses had control of the caucuses. dated 68 to take control and redeeming that control but what has to happen there is a lot of the factions some of them pledged allegiance to rices several factions have declared their no longer royal to the project but june of this year there was another announcement of the majority of those factions that we are pledging allegiance to isis but the speaker did declare at this point we are establishing from the north caucuses and this is our

group so isis has already declared it has a branch so on the one hand russia has those that come from the north caucasus and from the forces that joint basis and syria but russia is known, - - counterterrorism has been pushing these insurgent factions toward syria nbc a tendency of conflict there retain the loyalty to the caucuses project so while it is hard to predict what the next step will be, at the same time isis remains a threat it is impossible to predict if putin will send ground forces tears

syria, however what has happened there has been chechen no one and it to. despite operations of counterterrorism chechen that is still going on. so president putin has not secured victory over the north caucuses. what is the probability to secure victory by air strikes of groups or forces in syria? a question if it is even possible to achieve with a message he is implementing an with further counter terrorist operations to send ground troops for the

russian government there reeks of afghanistan and unsuccessful operations and we can see that again is not successful for mr. putin. so i will stop here with the initial comments and turnover for questions the major trend of counterterrorism to have more concrete questions. >> i look around the room what they know about the middle east so i will leave syria and let you address that i would just ask q. to clarify a couple things about the north caucuses. number one you said putin has now won a victory how do you define that? a lot of russians will tell you he did he ended the war

you can walk freely on the streets he is not bombing in a more a man is in control so how would you define victory? >> a great question. yes there is a lot of russians and people then the government and counterterrorism that says there is certain success with counterinsurgency operations but putin switched his policy badminton set of that targeted operation he started to rely on the plan to pacify chechnya and a certain level that has worked because they have pacified the factions of the insurgency.

this would probably a qualify as success. however the situation remains problematic there are still terrorist attacks maybe not as much in the news of those that are performed in moscow or the neighboring regions if you look at the list of attacks you will see there are still attacks happening on either hand one of the biggest problems was counter insurgency and terrorism with the threat to the region this is the most problematic aspect because the insurgency in the terrorist threat is no longer confined to a chechen rebel over the caucuses less

jointed and hierarchical and they're all over the north caucasus is ready to strike and nobody knows when. you can see how hard it is to predict you can see that with the boston bombings were virtually impossible for security services to prevent loaned of individuals to carry out these attacks. >> so victory is zero threat of terrorism? because i suspect many say that is a realistic but there'll always be a threat of terrorism. >> is probably politically impossible because that is political suicide to say we put an end to terrorism of the victory is to minimize that threat not for the rest of the region and as i

looked at the north caucuses this is what has happened in has been pushed out of chechnya into the broader region and beyond. the more radicalized factions of the younger generation who are eager to fight has been loyal to this dynamic and you might have seen a strike against civilian so they attempted to preserve to not strike as actively but there is also the transformation of the insurgent tactics with what is going on with those more radicalized forces and are the ones moving to do syria and other places maybe not

the north caucasus is right now. >> i will ask the inverse question talk about terrorism spreading presumably if russians are afraid that conflict in syria or elsewhere will result in the infiltration that means they don't have confidence in the ability to secure their border. how does that look in terms of the south caucus' neighbors and how does that look with the central asian neighbors? >> if you compare the borders now and back to the '90s you can see a dramatic shift the border with georgia was not secure and this is the channel for

which mujahedin were transferred to the north caucasus. to the present day you can see the border is very secure with very little opportunity to air travel through the established checkpoints but the borders we have seen is a tory is a m possible to monitor. there is the same problem on your the of caucuses in the far east and russia is still working in that direction to continue monitoring the border to close them off to insurgent elements however that is harder than it seems are declared. >> is there any doubt anyone who is fighting in syria has successfully entered russia?

>> there are cases reported by human rights organizations and the russian security services those that are in detention that have confirmed they have been fighting in syria on behalf of isis so they're still in detention and it isn't clear where they go for now and there has been cases of individuals moving back to other territories like the central asian republics because of the difficulty to go back to russia you may have heard of guantanamo where there have been several individuals from the north caucuses that were detained they faced persecution and abuses while there was no definite proof that those individuals were fighting against russian or

the u.s. forces in afghanistan so who is really fighting and what is happening when they come back. >> we will open to question as to everyone here. we have microphones give us your name. >> i am with the middle east program. they you very much. my question is about the ground force is syria. with the iraqi government against isis to play the

role of the air force is there a danger that russia is working with has blood on the ground to be seen as the air force in the region for this situation? did think putin has a transition in mind when he ever abandoned assad? >> of course, it is impossible to predict if you will use ground forces is or not he says he is absolutely not ready in serious but probably what is more predictable is the continuation of air strikes

were to the forces of assad and other forces in the region to support ground forces to proceed. but what we saw happening in you crave and there was an influx of the dead bodies of the russians or the soldiers that were fighting in the ukraine, that is when the public opinion started to return against the issue and started to question when he was really doing in ukraine. the save situation can be easily predicted if the ground forces go into syria and if they start to come back with the dead bodies that is a question were really fighting for? and whether this is a bp to of afghanistan or chechen now.

>> with the second question question, it is hard to predict his true intentions. it could be he wants to support him and tell he is ready to go on the defense that i would be in syria as long as i can support president teeeight nine to return against isospin on the other hand, you can see he will continue supporting assad so you can see it will take those courses and tell he retains control of the entire country. those are some print -- possibilities but at this

point he has declared i will only be there and tell assad turns against the opposition to restore order in the country. >> said that not big the question if he has paid in his troops he has limited success he has not put ground troops since syria he cherry picks his targets so does he not have faith in his ground forces? >> there are a number of things going on.

first of all, the operation in chechnya in '94 and '96 the russian military has gone a long way. there has been a lot of initiatives with the russian military that has been trading and reforming with a lot of changes that make it more effective smaller battalions against terrorist groups specifically trained against insurgent operations everything can the '90s there were not prepared to fight the insurgency bear right now there are contingents however not very successful operation did you create - - ukraine because

so far -- but has sought acknowledged it was those forces but for the public opinion raleigh he seemingly supports the president's very much against sending troops on the ground it is still a threat the syrian operation and vice this seems very remote to put soldiers on the ground i am not sure that mr. putin wants to cross the line to read maya dash alienate that population. >>. >> i have to root questions

- - two questions was the factor of this investigation published to facilitate the fight precisely because everett's pointed at the project but my second question regarding the recent statement to be the first to travel tears syria along with his highly trained private army he seems to have no hesitation about going. can you comment if that is the unlikely possibility with the troops being of the interior ministry?

thank you. >> thank you for your question. going back to the investigative report recently it came out the security services have been implicated to push the north caucasus insurgents out and has been facilitating the transfer to syria. in fact, it isn't as much border security but the involvement of security services of porter security has been approved but it is fairly difficult world in the '90s and today it is much more complicated if the security services help you to leave the country to join the fight in syria on this

side of crisis. so it isn't clear if it is the factual information that was based on interviews in the region with some of the insurgents. it is complicated those that are targeting anyone those that are called in the forest the insurgents to target the same people in the villages for money and support and food and other things. so as a bullet - - a villager with the security services and the insurgent forces and for some it is

easier to the fans to stay and find employment which is so very hard and problematic the employment situation is bad and the north caucuses there is a lot of religious issues. some may go to syria because there is nothing else to do in the region or it is so hard tuesday. whether the involvement is true is still a gas. but this situation is not conducive to young people to stay in the region to find opportunities for alternatives. >> could you bribe to get out of the country? the idea there is a policy from moscow to encourage

people to go to the conflict they are afraid that is radicalizing people to come back. they seem contradictory. >> they do. it does seem highly improbable there is the official policy to say that you have to go to a serious to fight for isis then come back and we will kill you but at the same time. >> skip a couple of steps. [laughter] or just air strikes in syria but the fed is say policy of the leaders but the person initially use of the jihad happening in syria but he

said wait a second there will not be enough people to stay in the north caucasus to fight them there was a fat wallet -- fatwah war said then they eliminated the leaders like that. for with its approach to syria but going back to your point a person who'd declared to be fighting in his behalf his forces although not the official word taking part in the conflict on the pros separatist forces so there is always -- already a

precedent not his official forces but links to the regime. he may be sending or preparing his troops he may be ready to train and equip those people so if there is a decision and they would be among the best to fight. >>. >> in the '90s the u.s. was involved with us soviet troops were there any in the revolt? >> not as much as you could predict.

after afghanistan those who were fighting the soviet troops went and joined insurgencies around the world including the north caucuses there were quite a few from afghanistan and other conflicts who came to join the north caucasus but there were several americans as well but the policy against the u.s. with the insurgency or terrorism. to save the repeat of the situation posed serious is what we saw opposed afghanistan for those who

did not want to fight anymore but that threat has been voiced rarefactions said we will come back. >> is sent the argument that there is a safe haven? >> there has been that and reports the u.s. has ben supporting the insurgency in the north caucuses and has been training mujahedin forces which partially is true because does you prepare those who came to the caucuses from afghanistan they did train the anti-soviet forces in afghanistan but a anti-u.s.

sentiments like the ukraine linked to the economic decline. >>. >> representation is very insightful. first and now people paid attention to what president putin said with that effort against isis with saudi arabia and all the gulf states we can see what putin was trying to affect not

just to support at that. . . the united states should engage with putin to have a concerted effort at not just destroying the forces of isis, but also the financial backers, the banks. >> the un speech that mr. putin gave did refer to the arms transfer, the syrian opposition forces

allegedly plot to have supplied by the un and kayfive. but he never named back back country or actor that he was acting about. his rhetoric clearly specified, look at what happened in libya. the us when in and actually created the very force because they remove saddam and saddam did prevent isis from happening at the time which is a very powerful rhetoric that is used. and it actually does make sense because you have on the one hand the probability of a dictator staying in power but may be controlling the insurgents in the terrorist forces. on the other hand, you have the unpredictable solution that the west sort of has tried to implement and the us-led coalition has tried to implement, but the west has been so indecisive and the coalition again, mr. pruden points out that there has been no successes achieved by the coalition.

of course,course, whether his alternative will be more successful is another question. >> and he points out. >> the gentleman in the blue for sweater.

>> keep it short. >> a long history in chechnya. we have a history of the current government in russia that uses repression. nemtsov was murdered. lawyers in prison have been murdered. there were four apartment bombings, many people suspiciously archaic. it would serve to unify the country. i make the plea to people here,. >> okay. and the lady right here? [speaking in native tongue] i worked there is a journalist.

covering most of the events so my question, i have undeniable evidence of the kremlin and general, their role in all of those serious attacks. i myself have undeniable evidence of the involvement in attacks, 2,005. that is my 1st question. what is your opinion? second question is, you mentioned that actually it was a guess about fsb involvement, the kremlin involvement, possible alleged involvement in pushing out the g hotties, the potential extremists from russia in general, and

you also said that -- >> what is the question? >> the following. those few who were reportedly were detained. >> i think we get the. we got it. >> in 2012 russia started an official policy of cleaning up the presence in russia from the extremists in preparation. and they are limited inside the republic.

how do they manage to get out of russia with those secured borders? >> question about the russian government involvement in all of these things. >> just like you mentioned, there are a lot of questions about the official government involvement. and i speak about it more in depth in the book, there is some evidence suggesting that the fsb might be involved in them. investigations of unclassified and have not been allowed. there are no establish facts, but at the same time the investigation would not be allowed. as you mentioned harassment,

human rights violations come all those things do happen and of course do not contribute to the resolution of the conflict. how many, how many of them are pushed by the security services, it is still hard to say at this point just because some of this information is classified, some of this information is available on the ground reported by some journalists but not others. so while we do not have access to the official reports, it is hard to say conclusively about the actual role of security services. >> you forgot to say the most important thing. >> exactly. >> more answers no doubt forthcoming in the book. thank you for joining us.

i no it is a short amount of time, thank you for joining us and join me, please, and thanking.

>> leaders connected to the black lives matter movement talked about race relations and the need for support for their cause from state and local government officials. this panel wasis part of the state innovation exchanges 2nd annual conference. it is an hour and 15 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] >> thank you. so yesterday and throughout the day today we have been receiving a lot of data, numbers, how to think about issues, facts, figures. but i think what is also important, and this came up in the last conversation and has been a theme running through the conference is that we need to ground ourselves and people, and this is what this panel is about. grounding ourselves in a movement, people, and the conversation about racism and the decisions that leaders and others in this country have made that impact black communities. forcommunities. we talk about black communities were talking about communities.

those numbers are amplified. unemployment, mass incarceration, healthcare, pay equity, police misconduct, so much more all affect black communities differently very serious life-and-death consequences. fortunately, a new movement has emerged focusing on doing something to address black lives in this country. and i think it is critically important the countries elected officials been time understanding the movement come out each of you can use your power and platform top of the movement and address the systemic issues facing black communities i am

committing whatever resources we can bring to bear to help support the movement and the coming months and years let me turn it over to dorian to provide further context. he will then introduce our amazing panelists. you might recognize some. his frequent contributions to the networks. in fact, i think you are getting back tomorrow morning which is why we are so grateful to have him here today. a great leader and bringing the issues around the movement to the masses. please give him a warm

welcome. >> thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. good afternoon, everyone. that is a little better. so it has been a little over a year now since the death of michael brown and thurston, missouri sparked nationwide protest. shot and killed more than two years ago,ago, and of course am talking about trade on margin. and thankfully movements

like black last matter or the movement for black lives has erupted and helps to bring about the stories of those who would have otherwise been without a voice. obviously this is a by cameras on all of our phones that we can now use and in some ways the devices are democratizing the media and allowing us to bring greater attention to the lives and the taken lives a particularly black americans. you probably know know earlier this year on march 4 the department of justice released to long-awaited reports. what happened in ferguson, missouri. we found officer jack wilson's actions were not unreasonable according to police protocol.

however, the other report revealed the ferguson police department long-standing institutional culture embraces meant for those of us the study this and those of us that have been active in police accountability and taking on racial disparities and bias in policing, none of this came as a surprise. but indeed they sparked more action, and you will here about the activities of the several campaigns from the organizations represented here. he asked me to provide a little historical context and the one example i can think of to try to track -- frame this discussion from black lives matter and policing in black communities, stage violence, the one image that can't to my mind is the image of him until. from 1954, i believe. 1954, 55. fifty-five which in many ways it is not as the books have been written by one of the keys parts of the civil rights movement, one of the

key sparks before montgomery they got especially young black people we will hear from our panel why they say black lives matter. [applause] the policy demands and what role you can play in bringing about a greater greater police accountability and racial justice for black americans in all americans.

and if you want to test the nature of our democracy, you can look at the flight of -- plight of black americans. and by the way, also native americans. if you look at the plight of the most marginalized, it gives you a sense of the health of our democracy. so we will here 1st from dante barry who was named new leaders of social justice and then 2015 and this year couple of weeks ago as the root 100 and terms of emerging, fantastic leaders doing amazing work in this country. the executive director of million had his movement for justice organizing to and

mass criminalization previously the roseville institute, several other organizations. msnbc, cnn, a prolific writer. and he is also on the board of the andrew goodman foundation and an opportunity agenda communications institute fellow. join me in welcoming dante barry. >> mental note to thank all of us. as dorian noted my name is dante barry.

emerge in response to the murder of trade on martin. reemergedreemerged in large part because of the media's failure to adequately address the events leading to his death and after his death. and our work really looks at the core of what we see as a fundamental problem, mass, mass criminalization. if we see from the 1980s the right-wing movement has had this strong presence, strong conversation around line order, typically to keep black communities and their place. and we have seen this in media, whether it's cops, law and order, but and order, but the mainstream media narrative has always been criminal black person and law enforcement hero. that is the economy we see through our communities today. and so our work is really two things. we build

next-generation human rights leaders working to end mass criminalization and gun violence and transform the public narrative around blackness in the media. and looking at anti-blackness at how it is pervasive in all our communities and laws and policies and cultures and how we look at this world. and when we say that, we mean that when all black lives matter all lives will matter, too.matter, too. and i want to make sure that is also communicated, when we look at anti- blackness, that is the root of most of our issues. and so i want to kind of quickly touch upon a couple of things. i we will work is core to answering this question, who has the right to feel and be safe in this country. we have gone through the black communities are no longer feeling safe. they do not feel safe with police, don't feel safe

within there own communities and they don't feel safe when there is a white vigilante coming to a church they do notthey do not feel safe. when we think about what safety looks like come i want you to close your eyes and think about what makes you feel safe. who you are with, where your at, what it sounds like, like,like, feel like. more often than none the 1st thing that comes to your mind is going to be a beach probably with the family, you are going to feel comfortable. needless to say, police prisons and security cameras don't often come. society has taught us that police prisons and security cameras are what makes us feel safe. black people, black communities feel safe when black communities are not trying to survive. we have the ability to not

feel politically isolated and marginalize and nonsystem, will be have the resources to reinvest in our communities as well. so in our membership we have folks that are working on a number of campaigns whether private prison divestment, divesting from resources police in new york city kamal the budget, how the budget in new york city was spent on over $100,000 for 1300 new cops in the city and how that resource will be better spent in communities that are poor and marginalized to even gun divestment and looking at have guns, it's really influencing how communities are being attacked. and this conversation around investment and reinvestment is not new. we have seen some work happening in california, really thinking about how we can reconfigure the priorities are on budgets,

when budgets that are being spent on over policing communities, over incarcerating communities and budgets that are being used to impact gun violence what if they were better recruit to have redirected injuries and were poor and marginalized what if we are able to solve the poverty question how work is geared toward that and i want to close but black lives will matter when black community start. join the center as a justice

fellow in the fall 2013. focus on organizing and criminal justice policies in new york city in an attempt to develop meaningful policy -- bottom-up policy reforms. she also worked extensively on police and criminal justice reform with partners around the country. she received her law degree from from school too far from some school in new haven. before that she was with the bronx defenders, equal justice initiative and criminal policy initiative, working in zimbabwe, along the way got masters. and was then working in south africa teaching and nelson mandela's alma mater. she will talkshe will talk

to us about her work at the center for popular democracy on the movement for black lives. >> it is a huge honor to be here. i am going to leave a little bit. >> thank you all so much for having me here. it is a huge honor because the panel is esteemed. but because i do a lot of local work, and city council , constantly dreaming and scheming. it is fun to be in a room full of folks at the state level, obstacles at the local level, we can address some of them. i am going to start by talking a bit about the work that we have been doing and have done and thinking about the place of state legislation and legislators

in transformational change. building stuff out of state houses mostly around racial profiling. we have seen a lot of action at the state level. but initiatives arising out of the state do not look like the gravity or possibility of the moment that we are in and don't reflect the expirations of freedom fighters and folks on the ground who are impacted by policies that limit education, and for state violence. andand so i think it is necessary to think about the entire system and not about tweaking the system but instead about transforming it and so much of that must happen at the state level. and so i will speak briefly. i hope it is kind of an amen audience, but the system that we are inside of color

of the criminal justice or education system, they are not just in need of tweaks but are broken because the roots are rotten. a criminal justice system came out of slavery and is a system built on social control, not safety. and it is not just about practices that are broken and there are practices that we need to fix but is the purpose of criminal justice is fundamentally fraud. the system continues to support and profit white supremacy in basic ways. what i think about what has to happen in the next few years and the laws and reforms that we make we really haven't i for reforming the systems. what is the purpose of a policing system in our country. in order to align state legislation with the present opportunity, and requires a

boldness on your part and also a boldness on our part to push you into those places and it requires a real vision about the world that we want to live in. the challenge is of the movement and yours, toyours, to balance this visionary transformation which is thinking about a new system that has different objectives and practices with the need to enact small steps and reforms today and tomorrow. how do we hold both of those things, recognition that we are inside of a broken system that is harmful and violent but also those things we must do in the next few years that get us to that place. i think that requires aa long-term vision, and yesterday i was in new orleans with a group of grassroots activists thinking about city budgets and reinvesting at the city level. and i talk a lot about the freedom budget. and randolph came up with this in 1967, and1967, and it is essentially a ten year plan to eradicate poverty.

it is hilarious. full employment and living wage and access to housing, things that you hear presidential candidates say today, and they said this and 67. i was talking about this plan. and can mcgill interrupted enter up to me and said comeau we have been doing justification work we uncovered the 100 year plan to remake the los angeles neighborhood. the hundred year plan. this corporationthis corporation has a 100 year plan to re- envision what los angeles will look like. but the idea is not sufficient. we must have a vision. how dohow do we think about a statewide agenda that addresses this vision we