>> obviously there are several elements there. some tb exceptional. with the responsibility of the individual officer. there isn't a checklists. to be inherently subjective

judgments in the officer is responsible for the decisions he or she makes. ambassadors cannot interfere for that reason. said to have the responsibility and the authority they cannot issue the visa. i don't have that authority that the counselor officer queued do so. this puts the horrific responsibility it is their decision. who ever the up for officer

was good then they can kiss his or her career goodbye. so the ethnic bias to have impact on the officers tried to do the right thing. as most european countries countries, there is no cut and dried or yes and no. it is with the subjective judgment.

>> years ago we had a no-fly zone in iraq. how successful were they? with the large measure of the implements specific to withdraw and all the things the when issued to every dimension even with military strength in the region. just as they increase from vietnam. >> the no-fly zone worked pretty well in northern iraq. ended in southern iraq you touched on an important point.

but in the north in the kurdish region and you have forces on the ground. i made several visits to northern iraq in 2002 and saw it firsthand they controlled the ground and we controlled the air to keep the iraqis out. the southern shia did not have that if he did so saddam hussein killed the southern iraqis by other means rather than and helicopters. but that is important. if you look at the no-fly zone in an syria there has to be a ground component.

and with u.s. boots of the ground with every islamic state and they cannot do that. in the south bbb jordanians could predicates complicated. and four no-fly zones to succeed there has to be controlled otherwise i was there and 2003 the occupancy of which were not all placed there is a subsequent decade

that got a lot of people killed and one thing i would not do is do not send 101st airborne in the islamic state. into precipitate it certainly did but i have argued for some time. not the withdrawal of military that made that crucial dash difference but of the political engagement. as i was out there with secretary of state every couple of months. but that all stopped when we

polled our forces out. political this engagement has more to do the unraveling the and the military withdrawal the we have seen unfortunately as freely and one to the other. that if you are politically engaged maybe they don't have to. >> as of this to policy disaster related to that speech with the global

leadership of the united states. but on the one hand the u.s. policy with syria has been pulling for the regime change with the chaos if it is called an now with secretary kerry that it is no longer to have the regime change. >> speaking to the u.s. leadership i read that quite literally to play a leader role with friends and allies around the world with that

unilateral action will only make things worse. these are collected challenges the require a collective response but i see energy indeed for the response. and that means building a consensus. so very much against unilateral action will solve nothing at this juncture. but collective commitment can manage the scene setter and managed at the moment. and rick respect u.s. policy towards syria i worry

greatly of the perception that i said earlier that there is a washington damascus access that is effectively in support of assad and therefore the larger the sunii population. it is inconsistent with our values per barrel and it will intensify a conflict on the road to resolution. >> mr. ambassador i am with the u.s. commission on international religious freedom. the refugees are unlikely to be resettled or return home.

so with that support with the end of this situation? end to have the country to themselves again? we cannot imagine a resolution to the syrian conflict. we hope there is an effort to manage it to have had to flee the country there is a

lot of organization that is invested to do much more to provide employment opportunities and working to do what you are targeted at with the civil societies with populations. the dead different ethnic or religious backgrounds. and that when circumstances to permit and with a different sense of who they are.

but it takes resources and right now we don't have that live alone to work on critical issues that is the bad situation getting so very worse. if we could stabilize refugee populations and work to give them better lives and a hope for the future we're going a long and weigh with a post crisis environment that is far more positive.

>> good morning. the with the governors of the press club the tomorrows spending bill will vote on those provisions what does that mean for criticisms of dual citizenship? >> the queue for asking that. the good news with the omnibus spending bill is the entire refugee elements of the bills are not there. with a very discriminatory language with the visa waiver program. i have not sat down to read the text yet.

but in addition to requiring a visa for the individual that has that requirement waived to travel to select countries it goes into a very dangerous area to say in the fact that british born citizens who happen to have a syrian or iranian father that they had never been to that country is no longer eligible for the waiver. that just really scares me. it is highly discriminatory and discriminatory based. but to your father or mother is if you are prepared to pass legislation about that

would about ourselves? with the most dangerous devotions and peter is made that is contrary to the values. so i hope and they pull that out and we have to be vigilant. and they are motivated by fear. that is what i meant to to sit down under a tree. that is counter to our own national security. than the spending bill avoided divorced.

>> my team is scott cooper. i may retired marines from iraq. i understand the point of american leadership and to talk about what about to start using leadership? >> says -- staying focused on the refugee issue, there are several things with the resettlement structure start

by convening those agencies that are involved. with the state and local requirements and to handle refugees at home. what are the resources? who'd needs what and where? i would like to see us can be a refugee summit. that we would convene an share. with such an initiative a lot of other work would start to get done.

what is the situation in europe? what do they need from us? how are the middle eastern allies looking at this? so the summit itself isn't the start of the process to be a force the mechanism to start the hard conversations of long all the participants i start at home, i start abroad between the administration and the hill. id to take that deep breath let's look at the values and interest in medicine proceed

from there. is a terrific organization. after you contribute to the arabs centered universe secord -- mercy core and there we have a legal challenge brought by the state against resettlement of refugees in the state and working with human rights first to file a declaration or a brief as part of that case. and as we look to step forward we have to watch our backs because there are some

bright indeed pain is a broad. >> next three questions. >> i work with the global the work and visiting the syrian refugees. to talk about hope there are syrians and other refugees to use the darr rejection of about welcoming 10,000 but we have hundreds of thousands of sharing our small loaf of bread.

also on the humanitarian side that are taking $20 per day per person. so how can we with a heart to be open to them? >> it is a pretty horrible situation. it isn't all about the money. but a lot of it is about the money. what ever we can do individually and collectively to overcome the wave of donor fatigue that is sweeping the world to indicate that these are human beings.

they need our help and it is our duty to help them. we have to reenergize both governments and populations to be more generous because we see the stipend eliminated and food rations cut and that will just get worse because without a summit approach to reenergize the global community, that kind of resources will keep going down as the refugees increase. to bear the enormous burden

to have that up -- obligation. >> i am of the board here. i just got back from palestine i was there with congressional staff but behind us and in front of us was a trail that revisiting day refugee cubes in jordan that the to the big about your comment of the resources may be there is a case to make with the appropriations committee if they will not take the refugees because that is a tough sell right now by the way democrats and republicans has the democrat not letting them in either i don't think it is a republican thing but to help the refugees where they are.

can you, but on that? >> i am delighted to hear their warehousing and senate delegations out there. yes. not to harp on this but wouldn't it be great if the president invited members of those delegations who went out to these countries to be invited to a the white house to is thank you for your interest for taking the trouble now what will redo? because you are right. it is not a partisan issue. is a national issue and sadly i have been getting some very interesting mail since last month and that

comes from self-declared democrats. i get that. we have a negative bipartisanship refugee resettlement. so let's get some positive bipartisanship going on to support refugees where they navy currently. but it will take leadership. those members will not come together back here to say we will do that. it will not happen but if they all go to the white house that could start. >> on the absence of

leadership is that to invigorate to see leadership coming out of the region? >> here it comes again. you may see arab states start to step forward with the united states seriously in fades. everybody is watching us and not seeing much so if they don't see anything, it is a hard truth. it is the 25th anniversary of the awacs -- iraqi invasion of kuwait.

think of the coalition that came together to expel iraq from kuwait the greatest since the second world war in which the saudi and egyptian and syrian forces were all present. do you think the region or the international community would have come together without u.s. leadership? not a chance. absolutely not. this is a challenge of the different nature. but there is one common thread. none of this could happen without the united states at the center. that has been the way the world worked since world war ii. with the strength and influence have diminished but it is still there.

most importantly there is no other source. our friends came together 25 years ago and i think they would again but it would require that same dynamic from our side. >> let me say we are all is an agreement over syrian refugees but outside of washington when i see is a certain amount of argument spaulding on the apollo years that are contradictory. you say we support american values that is why we do this but did you began your speech to say a substantial majority that tried to impose in the land of

democracy. second you say we have the most rigorous system possible it takes two years to get here but if you say that to people on the countryside they say four years to bring in 2500 that how is next year 10,000 without changing your standards and values? can we trust washington to handle this well? >> for the first part i am making a plea not to override public opinion but to engage public opinion. i hear the negative voices out there i don't hear very many positive ones to explain why support for refugees is in the national interest in accordance with national values.

that effort by the administration is largely absent as the negative voice is captured the airwaves to persuade public opinion. by m no means of my saying ignore that but engaged to produce a different narrative to get people to think about this. . .

>> now, i have been involved in particular with the issue of iraqis and afghans that have worked for us. and because of that they are in jeopardy. and we could do this screening without taking anything away from them. but we could do it faster if we made it a high priority. so i would be asking, let's take this from this priority and make it a top tier priority.

we want to put the resources and manpower into it. to do a screening that is far more quickly than we are doing it now. right now it is so far down the line of priorities that it takes what i think is unconscionable length of time. this is a global crisis. let's treat it like one. which manifestly we are not doing now. >> okay. with this, i would like to thank everyone for being here today and for your lively participation in the discussion. >> i would like to thank everyone for being here. [applause] >> thank you to the center

staff are working hard to make this happen. we appreciate it and see you at another event in the future. [applause] >> is turning prematurely orange. even with all of the administration, all of the historians that have said that they can allow.

>> i like to write about reagan because i grew up in the 80s that he developed the 80s. so it was a house in time for us. but i also write about the facts and i don't that up. it was a hell see on time for uk about ronald reagan so that it was the picture that emerged instead of the. >> sunday night on 8:00 o'clock on c-span2. >> coming up next, the implications of u.s. and turkey foreign policy. this is at the center for political and economic research.

>> good morning, everyone, i want to welcome you to this hearing on relationships between the united states and turkey. >> this includes going forward how the relationship is in the west. in particular in the context of what is going on. [inaudible] and that includes direct intervention in syria.

especially with the dynamics on the ground and transportation. [inaudible] so now it is entirely clear what russia is doing in syria. [inaudible] but we are going to talk about the rules of russia and syria and also in the context of the most recent incident and how that will impact the russia and turkey relationship and also

what is going forward. i have a great panel with me and distinguished speakers to my left. jeffrey is the senior fellow and director of the you -- eurasia program. and he is also a speaker on russian foreign policy among other issues. especially with u.s. and russia relationships also. he was just telling us that he just got back from russia yesterday. and so it's very interesting about the u.s. and russia

relationships. we have hannah, who is a research fellow and she focuses on eastern european politics and she is also talking about the u.s. and russia relationship as well. and our colleague is a research director as well. and so i want to thank my panel and thank you for being here for this discussion and without further ado i will turn to my

left and we will start with jeffrey who will talk about the u.s. and russia relationship and then we will go over to hannah as well in regards to what that means in the context of serious and then leaving into a conversation on russia and turkey relationships. and that will be part of this as well. >> thank you, i want to paint a broader picture of the actions in syria and the implications for the you bigger u.s.

relationship. of course there is always a prehistory to this. and in this case i would say that the important part goes back to the cold war. when the soviet union was a key player in the middle east and had a number of individuals in the region including syria and also iraq and the fascist regimes and the plo and some others. the soviet union's support is part of the globalization of the cold war in the 1960s. in the middle east became this latter-day cold war conflict between russia and moscow. they lost their regional hinterland and also their role as the leading patron of some of the regimes in the middle east in that part of the world, to the extent that when the united

states coalition to push the iraqi army out of kuwait in 1991, it actually got on board despite the fact that this is the current state of the soviet union. so at the end of the cold war and the soviet collapse, and try to integrate more deeply with the west. and this includes largely with what the united states and what they're trying to do. and russia has reversed course on this count. and we can see this as one of the key areas seeking to reassert its own goal, and this

is the context in which the arab spring broke out with russia in very different terms. in the typical way that we talked about the arab spring in 2011 what was happening, we have been repressed for too long by the autocratic governor governm. this upsurge in the arab world was being served as a revolt with the authorities with the range of radical and uncontrollable forces. for stability in the middle east and also in russia's neighborhood and given the large muslim populations in russia as well. so for that reason moscow was

quite opposed to the change of the context of the arab spring and was very worried that u.s. foreign policy was promoting chaos and instability and could have effects, blowback effects. where the u.s. has gotten involved, moscow says that it has only contributed to instability. and that includes in favor of uncontrolled chaos and it will emerge in its place. given that background, that only

in part, possibly in small part, this has been a very reliable partner from moscow and there is an interest in preserving the rule to some extent. but i think that there is a bigger set of issues here for intervention. one is about maintaining the coherence and the institutions of the syrian state whether they are ultimately going to be headed or not. so i think that the fate of the sherman act as a bargaining chip that it's seeking to play in ways that help to secure its own larger interests. the same time it's not only about establishing or reasserted control in the syrian state institution but also about asserting moscow's role as it was vertical ward at a time in its relations with the west and the united states in particular. so what the military intervention has done and i

think it also playing the overall interest of syria and iraq and iran and saudi arabia and other regional powers as well. and you can see, given the role that russia has played on this front that it has been successful inserting itself into the center of the conversation.

[inaudible] and so it shows not only the syrians but other states in the region that russia is relying on, in particular if they balance against the united states. we have seen this in the relationship that has developed over the last year or so. and egypt is a country that had done very much identified as a pro-western camp. and that includes a lot of the egyptian elite, the united states has turned their back on a country in a time of need. whether the new government has a sense that the united states will bear with it. while egypt is not shipping out out of the united states can't, the fact that it has engaged in a diplomatic overture to moscow,

there has been agreements on military sales and other kinds of corporations. and in doing this russia gains this larger global game and that includes the context beyond the middle east. the russia and syria intervention came shortly after a couple of weeks of finding yet another cease-fire. one that appears to be part of this. the point is that when russia started intervening in a way in

terms of allegedly fighting against the islamic state was as been pushing for a peace agreement. and suddenly the u.s. and allies needed rusher or forced to engage itself on this issue. which made it that much harder for them to focus on russia as an adversary in the context of ukraine relationship for a year and a half. especially after the terrorist attack. in order to go after the people who ultimately could threaten additional terrorist attacks in europe as well as in the united states. these are all much higher

priorities and to take the focus off the ukraine. and from russia's perspective, that has all been good. and so we have given a sense of some of the broader interests that was behind russia's intervention. in terms of the middle east more generally. and in the overall balance between russia and the united states which touches on syria, the rest of the middle east and the ukraine and other issues as well. we will talk about the specifics including the downing of the judge by a turkish airport. they do. >> thank you.

>> thank you for the introduction nonaudit we are glad that you did not start off with the treaty. [laughter] >> that would've taken like -- a long time. but i also want to agree. we are talking about why russia is doing what it is doing. that includes maintaining ideas of sovereignty, restoring this position at one time in the middle east, these questions about the ukraine. perhaps trying to remove some of these pressures and these are all incredibly important.

someone to talk about what russia is trying to do. i want to first focus on the military aspect. and russia has really viewed this as a kind of excuse to truly ramp up the military position. we have seen the russians move in and a lot more military equipment including a submarine moving to the base that they have their on the mediterranean sea and perhaps most importantly anti-aircraft, sort of very near to the turkish border.

but it's a very powerful new system. which makes it now nearly impossible to enter the no-fly zone because it covers much of that area. it also covers the area all the way into turkey into the air force base were both u.s. and turkish military would have been fine to do this on isis. i have covered half of the israeli airspace and a good chunk of syrian airspace. so the kind of excuse that is

good reason to ramp up the military positioning. in part as was just fed to solidify this idea and that includes russian television. there is a lot of talk about the other.

and they sort of and as soon as the russians that was shot down. and for me that is a way to distract from the realities at home. they were falling and they are going to suffer. growth is expected to decline.

we will continue to do that for a good long while. and russia has. [inaudible] we are going to continue a

little project design. there are people that would ethnically related to turks. in the past couple of weeks we started to see talk of the crimean peninsula. i want to bring it up just to pinpoint the way that the russians are talking about.

[inaudible] >> especially with turkey and russia relations, it has taken several months to organize in turkey and moscow about the turkish russians in courts. and the relations are entering

this. ..

>> >> to organize a workshop in moscow end how attuned contain those relations because of the agreement in syria. end with another workshop with this relation so we have to create some kind of

understanding. there were these problems but the turkey will then elect that the public opinion nobody was happy about this if they violated the airspace. of the two instances tour to gather with the nato. in the turkey syria border

was shut down by a syrian air force's so these kinds of things happen unfortunately. but this was unidentified at the beginning with those to incident but the reaction and. to understand that it was

upsetting from the russian and government and public opinion the first statement was considered as a reaction. and i kind of understand at that time even the appropriate statements with the company that supports isis. lake issues to be in the import of turkish troops. en to say to make a statement and those are shooting turkish and jets. so everybody is trying to

understand the first reaction. and to be borer officials. but that press conference end it was amazing. that we will present the proof that turkey is helping isis. and with that administration in northern iraq. to pass through this area to

be confused. what is russia the trying to do? to establish relations of the prepared this of the parts of russia and since then so what is russia of trying to do? i partly understand house some have economic problems. with these distractions to rally to public opinion.

yes they have economic problems and with day really a short period of time. to even say that the united nations will not be the same again. but once it begins that the russian plane shutdown. nobody talks about the russia of played any more. so the passenger aircraft so that thises is isis.

but what happens after that precious turf debut propensity. almost as an excuse with the air strikes a few days after the incident. i am not concerned with this but it will act as if it was victimized. and tutti escalate the of crisis and to talk about the

issue with president putin. but now with the climate summit every be a summit meeting. but it didn't happen with the only high-level meeting and that did not bring any results. but to deal escalate the crisis but i am not sure how far that will continue and talking about turkey and supporting basis that somehow that he doesn't say

this directly but to say a few things but but this is actually the nature to become so unpredictable. so let this plaint the future looks uncertain. since 1989. and to have the support that for now what we will not have that kind of relations. probably in the last 300 years meet an exception is

during that period. so now we'll see in the future if they can somehow for a commission to resolve that crisis together. >> you all have raised really great points. i want to go back to ask each a question if you talk about how russia tries to accumulate the bargaining chips. and you talk about the russian intervention in syria to engage them in many

ways. but is it playing the game? doesn't have a game plan? can you characterize that global game that you talk about? you talk about the economy's , how far do you think of that economic punishment? and in syria we talked about it in the room as well.

can reestablish the goals? in that policy with turkey with that opposition and with the n.y.p.d. at the u.s. has supported them in the past. so what is the implication with the syrian opposition with those groups? how will that play out in the syrian context?

>> what is the nature of the game? id the best way to think about it is a game that there are only a handful of players. the system is one that to a lot of us seems somewhat archaic with secretary kerry in particular uses the phrase to engage june to defer century diplomacy with 21st century tactics and that is up a good way to characterize in the sense the 19th century was characterized via handful of great powers as they do lines on the map to dispose

of the smaller territories. this is still largely the way back to russia understands the way it is played and the seed list with the ukraine and middle east with the syrian crisis. if there really is a bargaining chip that it isn't as much about serious been defining the terms of the interaction food will get the squares on the chessboard to line up? so the chinese game is a better analogy. to arrive at the settlement between the u.s. and nine russians does ukraine have a sovereign right?

our position is they can decide this for themselves they are a sovereign country and have the right to pick their alliance system they want to join if that is day the decision or not is not our right direction says now because ultimately what matters is the interest of the great power and nato is a parade and the rules have to be negotiated in the major powers so long term goal is to sit down with united states and europeans that establishes a speedier of influence in europe and you have seen something similar played in the least

to kraft the salomon from syria that allows it to maintain its own interest with the other regional players including the united states and saudi arabia that have to account for the russian equity and interest so to the extent that we engage in net gain although reluctantly, there wasn't much interest to have russia and tough intervention forced our hand to see the u.s. backtrack on the commitments that it made an secretary kerry after his meeting with putin said the u.s. goal was not regime change per se. but to look at the a other

administration officials that said over the last two years it was something quite different in the change is the fact now we are forced on some level to play this game that russia is seeking to play. now in europe is a little different because we are holding a hard-line would never indifferently arguing it doesn't change our commitment to uphold the cease-fire agreement. but of course, the other european powers plays a role as well especially after the paris attacks you see those european players with german

officials, italians who held that the extension of sanctions and others say hold on. we have another more pressing issue. let's not do anything hasty when it comes to moscow or the ukraine they can show some degree of effectiveness >> you answered in part the second question if we can establish what they want. and that the russians will sit down with the united states to hammer out what

will be the new spier of influence back in 1945 when they hammered out who would have what area of influence. that'' that vladimir putin gave and the old kgb guy once the old ways back. but if he wants the great power of russia back and once the status and then fled of your putin trying to correct what was done to their russian of post when he lost that status.

in then with the european colleagues in to do things i did not like in the balkans but now every time you make a decision and think about what russia wants or what they might do. they are a major player and now at the table with ukraine in syria and are involved in all discussions and that is precisely what they want they're interested to reestablish that sphere of influence. and with everything that you do. one thing we have not mentioned is the secondary goal is nato.

at the risk of sounding slightly alarmist one of the long term goals to see exposed of the alliance that does not mean anything. and is saying to call for negotiations. that maybe another prospect is vladimir attempting to display to the world that the europe this week?

if they say they will do something. with other international players it is the one that can be trusted and burned the one that you can go to innocence that is correctly laid out. to think of the day frame of action. in it in syria as the regime change six months down the

road if putin can comfortably say and then perhaps it is modest. >> that is of the year of most ukrainians. to the extent that they would be forgotten. to city played ninth but now he is russian and with that concept in the east and now starting to see a breakdown

in to do everything in their power to prevent that. to live is the sovereignty. because of what may or may not happen. they will do everything in their power except pass anti-corruption. [laughter] >> but it is funny, not really the with the first passed sanctions with corrupt individuals with the

orioles drilling equipment like schlumberger one thing though russians did is put sanctions on europe on silly the mislike cheese. it created an entire campaign in the netherlands it was pairs. in day beta big show of large mountains of the belgian she's and the collective reaction is why are they doing that? bear sanctuary in

themselves. all kinds of delicacy's. and for a lot of people there are very easy ways to get it just send it to belarus where they repackage under another label then send to russia. but in a weird way those that could afford to go by that was the creative class porker --. they don't necessarily can go eat the cheese enough fancy restaurant, shows that hurt them? and now we talk about turkish goods that is

another question. you doozy overtures to platitudes to develop russian and agriculture and then there be no little strategic that he sees in the european instances are there countries they are still friendly with that is why it is important that the russians have not banned the turkish women's. -- women -- lemons.

day you have any input? >> but the sanctions that have been imposed on russia those that have highlighted to other members the dark side of the globalization that makes the economy dependent but they can't necessarily control. with the sanctions there has been a real emphasis not only on the counter sanctions to reduce the exposure to new globalization. on stimulating and things

like the financial sector. with those fine and trusted partners and to develop to have moscow and beijing. and then you see something similar. and with that strategic folder ability. and that is the extent that russia is in for a long term period. not only tricky but united

states and europe. and in part to become more self-sufficient so the west and those that used to control russia's economy that is the flip side. so that the russians get used you not to rely on the outside world. >> i should have mentioned this that the russian people were used to. not fully of course, to support ourselves either with the most basic food items.

and that was of visceral thing to support yourself with your little cottage or country house. into jeans and russian society where the early years of the regime but putin made his name on who was revitalizing the country . .

>> when they were trying to build a better soviet union. we are trying to build a better russia and get back on the world's stage and restore that kind of respect or fear we want. so i am going to ask you to sacrifice and you are sacrificing vacations to turkey

and egypt. pardon? >> they can go to greece he said. >> they can go to crimea. >> crimea. they are being asked to sacrifice in a way and give up the turkish tomatoes for now. >> about the polish, on this sunday, they talked about the for the first time i was in poland i went to an economy forum and i never remember eating so many apples as once. at the beginning, you know, it was unknown but later a journalist explained to me about

the apples there. a couple things i think is we have to -- i remember in dnc and in 2007, they were making the speech about the foreign policy platform of president obama and blaming romney for breeding russia from the forces. and russia changed so fast. i think part of the problem was, i guess, romney visited poland to make that statement but i think if someone was reading the report, and i think the united states missed that point. what we see is sometimes unpredictable leaders. the unpredictability becomes from so many unpredictable

things. and then we see, you know, because of the structure is difficult to understand foreign policy to understand because of this unpredictability the go-political goals, the cost of russian foreign policy by trying to say what is in putin's mind. they read books about him with the kbg background and they try to figure out this may be the reason that russia is acting a certain way. i think it is causing a lot of speculation and one of the speculations may be the fact that they may be right to show the business of nato. like if maybe both european and ukraine intervention may be a

way to stop nato's membership. to show the business of it it might be aggressive foreign policy toward turkey. and these kind of airstrike violations may be a way to show that nato is never walking us home. that may the policy. the second thing is about syria. the real question you ask at the ging on syria i remember. i am not sure what russia was trying to do. but first they started the attacks and the estimated cost of the attacks was $4 million. and russian foreign policymakers were thinking they determined activity. to leave the proxy war, right? to leave the assistance and get into the israeli-palestine conflict it will have several cost. it is not about the economy

cost. but here, today the cost of the war i think increased to $8 million a day. i am not sure how much this will continue and how much russia can afford this. 8 million doesn't look a lot but to this kind of conflict we see increments and they consider if they spend so much they might say let's go home after a while. because of that, i think we should try to find a solution in an expedited way. they will push the diplomatic solutions and try to find a solution out of this. the economy punishment came and here of course the cultural sector kind of in turkey is worried about this. energy tech said i don't think

there may be any interruption for the energy. there are international agreements and i don't expect any kind of energy cut at this time. and regarding treason, this year turkey got one million less priest because of the retaliation. so the russian started to flow to turkey after what happened in egypt. and it goes on for many russian tourist. a couple months of like russian tourist and during the peak season and it didn't influence that much but you will see, you know, like the next summer is the russian position if russia changes things because in the statement, the conventional statement that is there, the statement that these can be suspended at any moment because of the decision of the executive. this is kind of -- it is still that way an open window for

negotiation and agreement about that. >> okay. well, i will just open it to q&a at this point. i want to take several questions for the sake of time, please. can you wait for the mike? >> last friday, the russian minister of defense stated and i am quoting as much as i can, the islamic state area of influence, he is talking about syria, is expanding. they are looking to seize about 70% of the syrian territory. the number of terrorist amounts to about 60,000 people. then he added there is a threat the actions will be transferred to central asia. this doesn't seem to be about the power of negotiation. they are concerned if this isn't

addressed now they are going to have a problem in central asia. seven months ago, we are in a war of attrition. the israeli press reported that hezbollah has more fighters killed -- who is winning the war of attrition? >> russian goals and maybe we can talk about isis and their goal of isis matches the goal of the united states to counter isis. i wanted to take additional questions before turning to the panel. >> i am a financial analyst.

my question is to michael: what are the potential outcomes of russia in the eastern region for the u.s. in the context of energy? >> well changing -- [audible question]

>> i think you showed there was a lot of concern the center might not hold. i am just wondering -- i am somewhat baffled by putin's reaction. a year ago, they announced the turkish stream which was a high point. then they were hard nosed about getting redemption about the terms for turkey. i wondered if it was the beginning of a strengthening of a relationship? what was the reaction -- you mentioned the ways that russia

and moscow -- how do they react and how do the population of russia react? if you have any insight. fascinating panel and i appreciate it. thank you. >> i think russia has concerns about isis. they reported around a thousand or maybe more russian citizens are concerned -- if you have such concerns part of your -- needs to be the places isis is recruiting. according to reports, they said this anonymous intelligence source of the united states, that 90% of the attacks were

targeted. that showed that they may have serious concerns but they didn't act like they are focus on those concerns. secondally wasn't sure. many people said that is enough. they reduced the prices at that point and delayed the reduction of the prices. so i have some concern about that. i am saying the english language and the russia media. i think the problem is a

disagreement about the turkish regime. they are talking about the instillation of radar systems. serious people are talking about lending of the u.s.-russian passenger jets. some of them took it to 300 years ago. >> let us point to one nato and one strategic divergence over syria. is there a way to pinpoint really where or is this just an isolated incident? >> in the analysis, they said

not to put this in and check it out. it turned out to be turkey on the radar system. it is on the radar system. but the interpretation was like the painting. >> hannah? >> on the question of russia and terrorism i do agree with what was said: if that really was russia's main interest they should be spending 90% of their time bombing actually isis' targets. i think the thing that concerns me is russia is using isis as a convenient political excuse. i am not convinced they care that much about terrorism in their region. they have had it for quite some time and dealt with the pretty

harshly in the past. and vladimer putin's 15-16 year tenure there have been incidents where the crimlen chose to use terroristic incidences as an ex cuse to do something they wanted to do. i am thinking of the series of apartment buildings which was used as the excuse to start the second chechen war. i am thinking of the terrorist attack on beth lawn in i think 2003 which was an excuse for putin to accomplish something domestically which was remove the ability of the people of russia to directly result governors. there are other terrorist instances or even tragedies like the sinking of a submarine in 2001 and then clamps down on the

media inside russia. he has been in depth at not letting a crisis go to waste. i am not convinced by the line they really truly do care. if they didn't care they would not allow saudi arabia to build gigantic mosques or allow the chech chechens to study in saudi arabia but that kind of stuff still continues. on the tartar reaction to the shoot down there really wasn't much of one other than a fear it would be put back on them. it is important to note there are two different versions of tartar. there are the tartars in mainland russia and the crimea tartars that speaking another language. i am talking only about the

crimea tartars and their only reaction was to be concerned it would come back on them as it has a little bit. and i will stop there. >> thank you. >> okay. on islamic states: so i do thing russia has a real concern about the potential for blow back both in central asia and the caucus within russia itself. i also think their analysis of the problem is a little different. we talk about the islamic state as the problem and we talk a lot about moderate rebels in syria. the russian position generally has been there is no such thing as a lottery rebel. after the kerry meeting that might be changing because there has been the formation of this rebel alliance with saudi arabia help and there is question about, you know, who the russians are going to be willing to engage.

>> starting to sound like star wars there. >> i haven't seen it yet. but in general, as it was said, the targeting inside syria has focused primarily on non-isis forces which impose the most threat to the assad regime. so for the russians this is not about isis per se. as far as central asia goes, yes, there is a problem. there are a couple thousands russian citizens fighting in syria and several thousands central asians fighting in syria who traveled to russia as migrant workers before going to the middle east. you think at some point they will go home but something you hear from well placed sensible russians is it better if these people go to syria because then

we can blow them up over there. i am sure that is true to some extent but you will not blow all of them up or prevent them all from coming home. but the sources of radicalization in a lot of these places is internal. you have militant groups, opposition groups, that are generated by the lack of political, social and economic rights they face in these countries. you have the islamic group in the middle east who has been fighting to put them out of their place. recently they pledged allegeance sooisis and that is not because of anything going on in syria but because they see isis' brand as potent and it is a way to further their own militant ambitions close to home. so yes, russia is concerned

about the spread of extremism and terrorism but it is not what is on the ground in syria only. there is a larger context. on energy, in the eastern mediterranean, i haven't been following this too closely, but from a power stand point the securing of a russian facility is significant in that one, you know, i think this is one of the key equities russia is going to face. the base went from a small repair shed that didn't host anything or have anything significant to something that does. it is heavily armed. some here are worried about the

denial weaponry that would make the eastern mediterranean a no-go zone for nato naval forces. there is a go-political context here and i don't know much about the energy dimension to say much. except on the turk stream, this has been a troubled project for a long time. with the decline in energy prices it would never make sense economically but now the economics make even less sense. and talking to the energy people this project was years behind schedule so the announcement about the cancelation was tied to deteriation. but the project was years behind schedule and not going to be launched on time anyway. >> we will take two more

questions. yes? >> is there a sense of -- from the media there is a potential -- at the same time they are posturing a bit and saying we can protect the homeland. so there is a test of a little more sacrifice and deal with the tensions as setbacks, tension from europe and afar. but the russian leaders in other situations are saying we are fighting against isis but we had a lot of others that did this a couple years ago. maybe if we adopt this situation we can fix the model and fight against this. so there is not much explanation but there is more action and that is getting some help.

>> two questions. [inaudible question]

>> another question. >> thank you for your help. yes? >> i am going to say that the russians are specifically against the region and i am

seeing the position here with the leadership -- [inaudible question] >> i am also curious with the -- in turkey, there are teachers if you remember, and they are trying to spread the word but it -- [inaudible question] [inaudible question]

>> this is good question. all right. on the question about do you think that the russians think they are punching above their weight. i think they are aware of what their capabilities are and are not. in certain areas they are crunching above their weight but in other areas they have advanced capabilities. the brand new caliber missiles they are using are quite advance. the planes, however, are a serious concern. that said there was just a long article in the new york time we are flying b-52's from the 1960s

still. they went through a military modernization program that jeff knows more about than i do. but they did work trying to make their force professionally. they are not there but generally any of the people they are sending to syria are on a contract and professional soldiers and moving in the direction of having a more professional military. in some areas they certainly are. in others, they are actually quite advanced. they made large strides since the georgia war which was in a way the kind of war that exposed a lot of their weaknesses and they spent the next six years working on it. what are they trying to achieve? i think we would all like to know that. there is never one goal. there is going to be several different goals. and the extent to which they

achieve one or several of them is going to determine whether or not they are going to consider themselves successful. to my mind at the end of the day the major goal is the restoration of russia as a respected, by which i mean feared, international power alongside the united states, china and whomever else perhaps europe, the saudi arabians, and india. that is what russia wants in my mind. and everything else to me is just a matter of getting there. i am sure the others have different opinions. >> thank you. >> okay. to your question yes, this is an older plane but the russians assumed they would be operating over territory where there was not a threat to that plane. right? they didn't assume the rebels had