research-based best practices in terms of victims' sensitive trauma informed interview techniques are incredibly important. one of the things i have learned over the years is when somebody comes forward is to believe them and to listen to them and not to blame them, if we want to establish trust, if we want to get the necessary information, if we want to have a successful prosecution and reduce crime. i think it's important to talk about the need to always write reports, always take reports, and to make sure we're connecting survivors with the services they need so they can rebuild. as tom and other people have mentioned, sexual assault response teams very, very important to make sure that everybody, all of the stakeholders, can come together. and i would also say this. law enforcement that i have worked with in illinois, they are hungry for this guidance. every single summit that we have

ever had was oversold. law enforcement coming forward really wanted to know what they can do to reduce sexual assault and domestic violence. and when implemented, these strategies, this guidance, will increase survivor participation because it will increase their trust. it will lead to successful prosecutions. and that will lead to increased public safety overall, so i want to end by applauding law enforcement in illinois and around the country who have truly pioneered some of these common sense strategies and they have proved how effective they are when it comes to being able to reduce crime in communities. so it can be done. and again, thank you to the department of justice and everybody involved for this very important guidance and for the training and resources that are needed to implement it. togeth together, we're going to be able to pursue justice for all.

thank you. [ applause ] >> definitely some key issues identified in that as well. director tracy, your thoughts? >> thank you. i too would like to thank the department of justice for issuing this guidance. too often sexual and domestic violence issues have been marginal to public policy, particularly in law enforcement in spite of the prevalence and severity of these crimes in our homes, our schools, and our communities. in fact, the obama administration is to be commended fornfj9÷ elevating th critical nature of appropriate public response to sexual and domestic violence. this guidance is unprecedented for its acknowledge of historic and contemporary bias associated with gender based crimes. and it's embrace of the important principles of modern

policing is outlined in the 21st century policing report. it provides a coherent framework and a blueprint against which we can assess needs and measure progress. i'm the director of the women's law project in philadelphia. we are a pennsylvania-based public interest law center devoted to improving the legal, economic, and health status of women. we work on intersectional issues connected with reproductive rights, violence against women, and gender discrimination in employment and education. our policy work on sexual violence began 15 years ago in the aftermath of an investigative report by the philadelphia inquirer that alleged that our philadelphia police department special victims unit was not investigating about 1/3 of the cases reported to it. we led an advocacy effort that led to a recalling of the

investigation of the cases. the allegations proved to be correct. commissioner displayed remarkable transparency and leadership throughout the investigation in both admitting and describing and releasing the data of his investigation and putting in appropriate management supervisor si and accountable measures within the department. he turned to the advocacy community and asked them to review their sex crimes case files because he saw the public lost confidence in the department. this innovative approach turned a confrontation into an extremely productive collaboration that continues to this day under the current leadership of commissioner charles ramsey. what i know from experience is that cultural norms about the role of women in society though

changing still have very deep roots and are frequently manifested in victim blaming. rapists are profiled as liars and domestic violence cases as perpetrators. it would be foolhardy to suggest police are immune from this bias anymore than prosecutors, judges, or the jury pool and society at large as we know it. so it takes a lot of hard work to undo centuries of ingrained attitudes and beliefs and this kind of gender bias is exacerbated when racial bias is added to it. there can be no place in 21st century policing for explicit gender based or racial bias. acknowledging the deep sides of implicit bias is a bit more

challenging and complex, but it's absolutely necessary in responding to the diversity and changing norms of 21st century america. again, kudos to the department. i also want to acknowledge how hard the work is. we review 400 to 500 cases over a three to four-day period and i never look forward to it. i hate reading the circumstances of vile human behavior and i'm only reading paper. i'm not interviewing traumatized victims or people suspected of committing these hideous crimes while needing to maintain the neutrality in that interview. i have enormous respect for police who do this and do it well day in and day out. i understand some get burned out. vicarious trauma is real. some make mistakes. and some should simply not be doing this work. that's one of the reasons our

case review is effective because our eyes sometimes get catch problems that get lost in the chaos of the day-to-day work in the department. we're proud of the work we do in philadelphia, but we don't in any way think we're done. there are plenty of principles that are outlined in the guidance that we need to work on more fully. we know also that our issues are not unique to philadelphia. many other police departments have been subjected to scandal and scrutiny, and i applaud always the efforts of the investigative journalists that have uncovered this, but i've also learned the critical importance and effectiveness of leadership. leadership is everything. community engagement is necessary. and transparency really works. so i urge police departments to fully engage local community to work with rape crisis and domestic violence programs more fully, to be transparent about their data and their issues and their problems. no one can solve this alone.

in many cases we know that police response should actually be the last resort to dealing with issues of sexual and domestic violence and frequently it is the only resort and it has to be good. adopting the principles of the guidance is a strong starting point, and i'm hopeful that the philadelphia police department will be the first to fully implement it. >> great. thank you, carol. [ applause ] >> carol, you may know that the external review panel, which was created in missoula, montana, has had great success was followed and modelled. >> yes, we spent a lot of time with your advisers. >> thank you for that as well. next, major tap harper. your thoughts, please. >> hello. i would first like to thank the department of justice for having me on the panel and for

including uniformed law enforcement leaders in on this discussion. during my experience, one of the things i've noted is from a law enforcement perspective frequently law enforcement professionals haven't often been exposed to individuals in certain communities. more specifically in marginalized communities. and they just don't know what they don't know. and frequently they are just not informed, so it's not that they're trying to hurt anyone. what this guidance does in particular is it provides law enforcement leaders with an additional tool to assist with

development of policy and training. i believe that first and foremost in law enforcement everything we do begins and ends with training. and it would be critical for this guidance to be integrated at every level of training and more specifically at entry level, at inservice, at supervisor si, and command level training. at the recruit level training, i think it should be there. at inservice training particularly because this is when police officers can become very cynical. i think at roll call training also would be a good idea. at supervisorsy training,

because supervisors need to be reminded to follow up and monitor the behavior of what the officers are doing. and also at the command level because that's often where i'm finding that the training is missed. you may hit the bias training on all the other levels, but then frequently the commanders have absolutely no idea what is going on at all these other levels within the organization, so i would also think it would be a good idea for the guidance to come in at the command level and also for it to be implemented at part of the policy in organizations. additionally, as a part of promising practices, community involvement i think would be an excellent idea.

what i use as an example -- when i was in northern district commander, there was a transgender community in the northern district to help and assist me with training. i don't think people oftentimes are trying to hurt anyone, but some of the comments that could be used and could be offensive and harmful -- i brought the transgender community to come in and assist me with the training to help to drive some of this information forward. it was very helpful and not only that. it also helped to forge relationships with the officers within the district. months later they ended up giving us information that assisted with criminal activity. this was information that we would not have known otherwise

had not these relationships been gained through that training. so it was not just effective for the officers in one way, but it was also advantageous for us in another way, so i think that's a very promising practice for community involvement as well. i also think that the inservice training can also remind the veteran officers of the importance of aggressively investigating these types of cases. sometimes when they have years on, they can sometimes forget how important it is to continue to aggressively investigate these type of cases. one of the other things that i wanted to mention about that whole community piece is all the

interfaith community as it relates to sexual violence. i think that the community layers on should be used to get this guidance information out. many times the interfaith leaders are the first point of contact for individuals who are in this type of situation. so if we can can sometimes forge some type of relationship with them and get them involved some type of way in the training as well, i think that could be beneficial also. principle seven that says hold officers accountable i think is an important element as well. my overarching themes would be two things -- training and accountability, would be my two

primary focuses as it relates to uniformed section of law enforcement. thank you. >> great. [ applause ] >> thank you, major. thank you very much, major. major tap harp eer is just one many national law enforcement leaders that are involved in this conversation to help us to where we are today. next, ms. jacobs, your thoughts? >> thank you. good morning. i think i want to echo where gupta started which is when you find yourself in presence of brilliance and a star-studded panel and it starts out with the attorney general and then our brilliant colleagues here within the department -- and i say within the department because i'm a proud alum. 20 years ago i was about six months into my job here, and during those five years i became

an alum of two of the three offices that have helped to lift up and get this guidance out, both the office on violence against women, the civil rights division. ron, we can talk offline. i'm looking for a hat trick. you know how that is. [ laughter ] >> but i want to start by offering my profound thanks to the attorney general, to the civil rights division, to the cops office, to the office on violence against women for working with us to get this guidance out. it has been a long process. i think it's been a useful process and one that's enabled us all to sort of share our own perspectives and to arrive, i think, at a common sense of where we need to go forward. i think it's terrific that i have followed not only, as i said, the brilliant folks within the department, but my colleagues here on the panel because they've done a lot of the work already. i can almost go okay.

but i think it was so important that major tap harper started talking about -- so what happens when law enforcement goes into a community with which they are not familiar and they don't know what they don't know? i think this guidance has -- is going to provide a terrific opportunity for people to be able to sit down, whether as community advocates, i think the structure of stock grants that already have that coordination going on with law enforcement and advocates will provide some instant entree for people to take this guidance to sit down and talk about it and to make it real. i think that the principles that are articulated are stellar. they're the right ones. they're going to move this discussion in the right direction.

and i think particularly gupta and carol for what she said and it came up in major comments as well -- enforcement does this work and when you look at the data, the bulk of the response, the work that they are doing, often, is in response to this kind of violence. they encounter people at their worst and they also encountered people who are complicated. so they encounter an l.g.b.t. couple. but that l.g.b.t. couple may also have sort of the overlay -- they may already be suspicious of law enforcement. they may feel like their relationships are not going to be respected. and there may be an additional overlay there, whether or not you are dealing with race, are l.g.b.t. status with a trans person. i think we know when we look at these multiple layers, and i say

this as a woman of color, things get more complicated. so i look forward to working with the people in this room, with the national task force which, if folks aren't familiar with that, it's sort of an umbrella group that works on reauthorization of violence against women issues at the federal level. i've had the privilege to be on the phone with them twice yesterday to talk about this guidance. there was so much excitement, there was so many interest. there was frustration that they didn't already have it. is it up? is it on the web? can we get it? but i want to lift up particularly our native sisters. when i was here 20 years ago, part of what i was doing was listening to them talk about what the challenges for them looked like.

while i'm so excited about doing this, obviously, the challenge is somewhat daunting. one of the things that many of us have looked at and heard about this year is a survey that the national domestic service hotline did. they talked to about 640 survivors of domestic and sexual violence who called the hotline for help. half who had reached out to law enforcement and half who never had. of the half that reached out to law enforcement, maybe about 20% of them said that they would never do it again. that they were afraid.

that they were threatened with arrest. tlrn sort of similar numbers, maybe about 25%, who said that they would not reach out because they were afraid that male law enforcement didn't understand women, that male law enforcement didn't understand issues of race and immigration status. so i look forward to working collectively to bring to bare all of the groups that work on th. thank you again for your hard work on this. [ applause ] >> professor goldship, your thoughts? >> i want to echo the thanks to the panelists, the department, the cop's office, for all of the work that has led to this day, i am honored to be here.

it is a little daunting to follow all of the speakers this morning. i think we should just go and start getting to work because there is so much to be done. but this is really a memorable day. i want to commend in particular, the department in is work for developing the guidance and also, for its work in responding to complaints and investigating complaints on the ground and to work with local law enforcement. the guidance importantly calls on law enforcement officers to translate those principles into policy, training and supervisory

protocols. and i think that's a point of departure for all of us to think about after today. i thought it would be helpful to conducted by the university of miami school of law, the aclu and cuny law school. this is a compliment to the survey of hotline callers that lisa lynn mentioned. because the report really reminds us of whooi we're here today. of the challenges we face and the work that needs to be done. despite all of the good work that has been critical and needed to be done over the last few decades, an overwhelmingly number of service providers report police blame them for abuse. many of you may raised concerns about gender bias as well as

native american women, muslim women, women of other ethnic backgrounds as well as general bias against immigrants and lgbtq identified people. there's widespread concern remaining for sex workers, those with histories of mental illness or drug addiction. and there's a deep concern in communities about collateral consequences of law enforcement involvement including involvement with child protection services, with fears that calling the police will trigger immigration or deportation proceedings, fears that arrests would lead to loss of housing, employment or welfare benefits or that the survivor herself would face a risk as a result. at the same time that we still face these challenges, service providers still face many challenges. they've talked about the importance of leadership from

the top and i'm sure we've heard stellar kmampls of that. it's suggests that periodic reviews from the community can be really helpful. they talked about how community-based practices, such as coordination among law enforcements, advocates and service providers, particularly to address high-risk individual cases have been really useful. and how multidisciplinary response teams that coordinate efforts from multiple governmental agencies have been really helpful and have task forces, coalitions and partnerships between service providers and law enforcement to explore systemic issues and promote policies can really make a difference. one thing that we know is that domestic violence and sexual violence are really complex problems. and they require nuanced sluxs. as i said, i commend the department for bringing us together in that regard. the report, interestingly,

highlighted that a majority of service providers weren't aware of the department of justice's oversight authority. while ofg that authority and the capacity is limited, i think that tells us that we have a real opportunity for public edge kagts here. so what are some thing that is we might do going forward? public education materials might be distributed. it can be a starting point for community partners, service providers, advocates, to talk about how to improve practices and policies. it can support the kind of training we've talked about, both on gender and other forms of bias and how those biases

affect policing. but also about the collateral kons chemical weapons that i mention. they will require a nuanced response, but are critically important for us to pay attention to. i have no doubt that local advocates and law enforcement will come up with many other creative strategies that will respond to the needs of particular communities. i look forward to being a part of those conversations and want to say thank you for your work on this. [ applause ] >> thank you so much, director thurman. we'd love to hear your thoughts on this guy dabs. >> thank you. and good morning. it's really good to be last. my distinguished colleagues here have really raised all the issues and made all the critical

point that is we need to hear about the guidance. >> i will wrap up saying a few very short things. i will pick on -- especially thank juanita ron and bee. i see people for all the good work we've ever done. we do our best work with collaboration and the the president of justice. this guidance is just one more example of how important your work is. simply put, 18,000 some police agencies this morning and 800,000 some first responders got up and went to work and all night long they were already at work and they're responding to these crimes, sexual assault, domestic violence. they're terrible crimes. they're complex crimes. and the bottom line is that the decisions that those officers will make and have made and will

make are life-changing decisions.u7krm this is serious business for all of us and certainly for the icp. we've spent over two decades working with the office of violence against women and others to come up with best practice policies, protocols entering on these issues. i want to, i have to and i must thank david koresh who has led that charge for so many years. all of those that go to work, all of those policies, protocols and procedures are derailed, entirely derailed. entirely useless in the face of bias against plifs. so what we have to do is change that and change it aggressively. the president's task force, which ron has so supported, that says policy for lunch any day, i think we've heard that over and

over again, we have to make sure that every officer has implicit and explicit bias training. every officer understands the potential for bias. so that's the work to be done. so i think that i can make it clear today that the icp fully adocuments and endorses these guidance. the point being that action has to be taken. i think what we're talking about here is we need to revamp and take a hard look at everything we've already done and then embed this new guidance into everything that we're working on currently. we've got to make sure that it becomes a focal point of all of the policies and procedures out there. again, without it in there, we

run the risk of failing on all of those calls that officers were responding to. i teach a class at american university and ron says he find himself at a time of profound opportunity for change in policing in america. and i thank you because that got into my head as well as my students. i think we are there. this is a profound moment for change. and i my hope is that we all work together to make that change very successful. thank you. >> kplept. >> excellent. we have about ten minutes left and i just thought i'd summarize here. there were some major themes in this. and the first was really an examination. an examination of what we don't know, we don't know.

reelly looking at that and examining that. the second one was leadership. the important role that leaders play in police organizations around these issues. certainly training being a part of that. training at all levels. that we can't excuse folks from training on these important issues. and that this cannot be a one-time conversation. make sure we're integrating this into all of the training is key. transparency, community involvement, trust and collaboration, key parts of everything that this panel talked about and many examples of that. i, too, have had many outstanding opportunities and i do believe in the creativity that can come from communities because the community knows

itself best. and by bringing all the community together, we are going to see better collaboration, more trust. and culture being a piece of that conversation certainly has to occur. we also heard accountability. accountability is not just accountenty for offenders, but accountability for police officers. the women and men in our profession who do this very difficult work. the majority of men and women are in it for the right reasons. but when those don't meet up to the high standard of our profession, they have to be held accountable. and then, lastly, we talked about chachg nge or transformat. that has been a theme of the day as well. this is a time for change. it's an opportunity for transformation. we hope to see it, we will see it with the continued efforts

for transformation across our country regarding this guidance. so, with that, i would certainly like to hear from anybody in the audience that might have a question or comment for panelists, if that's something you're interested in. >> can you please use the mic? >> i just want to take this opportunity to really support this guidance. we have been at this for eight years. new orleans has been under decent decree for ten years.

i am here to say that it is working. i just commend the corporation of advocates at every level. it is the thing that makes the difference. i think the fact that we have con sol dated all of these different systems under one roof and really workday in and day out to communicate, to share, to do case reviews, to talk about the cultural impact, the impact on survivors and what that means in long term issues around the training. i'm just hear as a testament. we're here to give inspector general reports that devastate us and affect the police morale. but it's critical that we continue to support them, to help them find the solutions, not just to blame them.

it really makes a difference when they heard the systems, the police chiefs, really embrace this as an opportunity to make these deep, cultural changes. and it won't happen without that. >> thank you. thank you, mary. it's nice to see you again. good efforts being made, certainly, in new orleans. i've been pleased to be a part of that as well. >> i think it starts with leadership and it simply has to start with a commitment from the

community leaders and you just simply have to say i'm just going to make it happen. i've planned to personally, you know, speak with the leaders in my organization and integrate this and to our policy. i'm going to make it happen. i mean, you just do it. [ applause ] >> there is an opportunity that leaders have. leadership is about action. we certainly can appreciate that. ms. jacobs, you've written about violence in women of color and can make women of color invisible in our criminal justice system. can you shair a little bit more with what you mean by that? how does this relate to that and hue do we continue to look at all kinds of biases around these issues.

>> who have chosen a particular universe of women to prey on. it's precisely the point of how multiple layers come into play. he chose women who were poor. who were black, who were poor, who had substance abuse issues, some of whom had been prostituted. and he chose them because he viewed them as invisible or disposable and expected that law enforcement and prosecution would do the same thing. i think we have a perfect model

in what happened out there for what we need to see with this guidance, right? law enforcement did the right thing. gave the investigation, gave the prosecutors the tools that they needed and they demanded accountability. and that jury, and many of us, myself and others, were very concerned. it was an all-white jury that was going to be looking at driedrie crimes dmited against imperfect victims. no victims are perfect, but, again, the choice had been made by the former law enforcement deemed not important people. they didn't reach out to law enforcement, except that last victim, when the law enforcement person made a mistake. they didn't reach out because they didn't expect to be

believered. so what law enforcement did is the bedrock of restoring trust. they saw those victims. they said we see you. we hear you. and we are demanding accountability for you. and that combined with communities of faith, looking how linguistically appropriate responses can be brought to bear is how we're going to get our arms around it and how we're going to get this work done. thank you. >> well said. >> we have time for one final question from the panelists. actually, can we take a question from the audience, please? >> one of the things that i've

really been working hard on with the air force, and one of them is what you all talked about, what you really touched on. this automatic default when it comes to sexual assault cases of believing that it's not true. i call it the myth of false reports with respect to sexual violence. and i guess my question goes to what types of checks and balances do we need to implement in order that this automatic default isn't gone to? it's about a cultural change, as you said, leadership at every level.

>> there are people in there that can find a way to change agencies. we have to make policy have teeth. and so that there is nowhere or that individual to hide. i like calling it turning the lights up. when you turn the lights up, the roaches scurry, right? mark win would tell us, make that stove hot. people won't steal a hot stove.

how do we make sure they're doing? >> anybody? >> carol, whooi don't you start? >> well, i do think the process we have in philadelphia is a good model. it's also to visit us if it can be replicated. it does root out problems. and it does lead to policy changes and, quite frankly, when you think about the philadelphia police department, it's one that they've learned is usele. we see things that they don't. and sometimes, some of the things that happen, one year, when a group of individuals, we put in a pile problems that we have. and it turned out we all had identified one officer, not knowing it, because the participant ins this are women's

law project, women organized against rape, support center for child advocates and the children's alliance. so we had all identified one individual whose interviews had turned into interrogation. now, either that officer needed to be relocated to a different position in the department or maybe that officer was burned out. there are times when we'll see a case and the captain or lieutenant will say gee, that's odd. we don't expect that from that one. something is wrong. so community oversight sunshine, you know, it works so many other arenas. and it's not that difficult. we have a huge volume in philadelphia. we've got over 5,000 cases coming into the special victims unit. we're trying to figure out how to do this more effectively in domestic violence. we have 150,000 9-1-1 calls

coming in. none of us have enough resources. i think these projects, perhaps, new data-drive policy, should be driving more resources. they are certainly models for all're kinds of police investigation. i urge people to look at this process. none of us get paid for it. we all volunteer our time to do it. the pligs say you know, we interviewed and it's not that bad. so it's not the only. but it's an idea of it's an accountability measure.

>> external review, the work that i've seen in philly and also mezula has been fundamental. >> would you like to comment on this, as well, please? >> i would. very much so. serving leaders of today and developing leaders of tomorrow. i think they raised a really critical point. we need to make sure that's specially young officers who make their first mistakes, who show their bias, who do it wrong, are held immediately acountab accountable by first line supervisors. they're said they're not dismissed from the job or transferred, at that point, they're educated. let me show you how to do it right. we node those guys. the midline supervisors to bring up a sea of young people who know how to do this right.

and those midline people become our future police chiefs, in i e any event. >> very well said. that ends our time. >>. >> i just wanted to say really quickly, as a district commander, i did my own integrity tests. if i would get a call for service go out, i would stop, pass the call and say, you know, i was the call for service. how did the officer do? and, you know, just get additional information as to how the call for service was. that gaifr ve me a lot of latit as a district commander to deal with a lot of levels. i don't know how you do what you do, but just an idea.

i did my own integrity tests. >> great. >> any other closing comments from panelists. >> so let me say in terms of what everybody said, very, very effective and important strategies, the leaderships, the training and the accountability piece. i can tell you what we've seen in illinois that is very, very effective, heavy survivors speak and having law enforcement and other people listen to them about their experience. very powerful. in addition, i would say that bringing together everybody. so you talk about in terms of the audit. i don't know how open most, you know, police departments are going to be, the feminist lawyers doing an audit. but they are open, and i've seen great success, when you bring law enforcement prosecutors, advocates together to do those case reviews. there's an immediate accountability. there are solutions that can be

implemented very quickliment i've seen that to be one of the most effective models when dealing with these very difficult and challenging issues. >> very good point. any other closing comments? >> it's very intimidating to have what might be the last comment, but i guess the only thing to keep in mind as we close this really inspiring discussion, is to keep survivor safety and autonomy and dignity in mind as our goal as we think about what we're aiming for, what we're hoping to accomplish, that that should be front and center. >> yes, very well said. that brings our time to a close. i'd like to close with a couple final words. ins prags and opportunity. that's what we have. and so this is exciting and historic. and i look xxward to continuing this conversation around the country with all of you. thank you very much. >> thank you. along the lines of themes, i

wanted to thank you in terms of commitment. i think you've seen commitment to the department of justice, to all of our state and local law enforcement leaders that are here as well as advocates. so thank you all for coming today. and thank you all for your commitment. please, i also wanted to know, in terms of commitment, we wanted to recognize that the office of the vice president has joined us, we want to reflect that we have support from the top of the administration.

>> thank you john molina for getting us all started today. i would like to joining in welcome everyone to the atlantic council. we take great pride in bringing voices from the region in whatever we discuss regional events. we take great pride in being

multidisciplinary, cross disciplinary and in this case we have the eurasia center and the hariri center for the middle east working together on this fundamentally cross-regional issue. and even as american russian and middle eastern diplomats are together new york wrestling with the same problems we'll be discussing here today. we would just like to go to our experts who began speaking. i should note that at the bar principle discussions here today, speaking from papers they will be presenting early in the new year so you are getting a prepublication. ambassador hoff if you would like to begin. >> thank you frank. this is the paper to which frank refers will be published to think in the new year. it rests basically on five assumptions.

number one, the russian and our brand were separate but entirely compatible reasons want to keep the shah and assad in power indefinitely or the foreseeable future, at least in part in syria. the second assumption is the nature of the military campaign being waged by russian aircraft and iranian assembled omissions in syria against armed groups, not iso- fighting the assad regime defines russian and iranian priorities in syria. for both the battle against isil seems to be a pretext for assembling forces aiming to eliminate alternatives both to assad and isil. the assumption underlying this work is that or iran, keeping

assad in power mainly has to do with assad's willingness over the years to subordinate syria to iran on all matters related to hezbollah in lebanon. keeping hezbollah fit to fight, israel and politically dominant in lebanon are crucial iranian national security priorities. assad has delivered. there are no constituencies to this particular relationship in syria beyond the ruling family and its enablers. it sees bashar personally as embodying whatever residual legitimacy as last to this regime. fourth, for russia assad's continued incumbency proclaims moscow's return to great power

status. putin claims that washington has been on a democratization and regime change jihad since 2003 in iraq. he wants to stop it cold in syria. he wants ideally to confront president obama with a binary choice between a barrel bomber on the one hand and kayla baghdadi on the other. he wants president obama to eat is 2011 words on assad stepping aside. rush i believe sees the diplomatic process is a time buying instrument. the russian military operations in syria are fully consistent with the goal of forcing binary choice on washington but it will take time to create the requisite allen perry facts on

the ground and extended process can provide time although i have strong doubts that russia militarily will be able to achieve this objective. now, these assumptions, these five assumptions might either now or in the fullness of time proved to be absolutely erroneous. russia and iran may come to see bashar al-assad as expendable. john kerry may persuade them that a continuing political role for this regime is indeed poisonous to the prospect of united syrian front against isil i think they argue now this. it's just that their interests lie elsewhere. this is just my opinion. on the other hand the russians, they actually think the dash that there currently pounding in the province really are isil.

maybe iran thinks that there's a genuine appetite in syria for subordination that transcends the assad family. so because my assumptions may be wrong i have tried to devise an alternate stereo strategy for obama administration consideration i would not be at odds with the current vienna process. my proposed alternative is based on an assumption about the kind of syria president barack obama ideally would like to hand off to his successor. such a syria i think would have the following characteristics. one isil would be gone. two, assad and his entourage would be gone. three, serious territorial integrity would be an impact or an inclusive national unity

government in damascus which consolidate stability, protects the vulnerable -- preserves governmental institutions including the military and qualified staff pursues accountability and reconciliation, facilitate humanitarian assistance and begin the processes of reconstruction, reform and constitutional overhaul. finally in this ideal syria that barack obama would like to hand off, refugee return and reintegration would be underway. now about these five characteristics or at least making significant progress in achieving them would form the objective. the strategy i would like to think about would involve three elements.

one, defeating isil militarily in eastern syria, ideally before another paris like incident. this would require a ground combat component powerful enough to pose with and kill the enemy. ideally this component would be drawn largely from regional states. at present, the appetite is not there. it would have to be stimulated by a sustained and heavy american diplomatic list. it would have to include american skin in the game. it would have to feature sustained american leadership for the duration. the second element of the proposed strategy would center on protecting syrian civilians from the mass casualty atrocities of the assad regime. doing so would deprive isil of a recruiting tool, fulfill a

practical precondition for productive negotiations and political compromise and mitigate the premier humanitarian abomination of our time. diplomacy first, urged russia and iran to take their client out of this filthy business. this i would hope would be the focus of today's meeting in new york and no doubt it will be so. if the russians and iranians can't do it or won't do it, limited military countermeasures would be justified to make it somewhere between hard and impossible for the assad regime to continue to kill people at wholesale rates. my preferred methodology would involve the standoff systems such as cruise missiles and would avoid anything that has the word's own attached to it.

third and finally given the syrian opposition and opportunity the financial and technical support to establish decent and effective governance in areas liberated from isil. at the assad regime chooses vienna to negotiate it will have an interlocutor. if it continues the collective punishment and mass homicide it would face a non-iso- alternative ultimately replacing it albeit sometime during the term of mr. obama's successor. now none of this, none of it would be easy. all of it would be very problematic. options have narrowed over the years from bad to worse but if the objective of the obama administration is to hand its

successors the kind of syria i described cannot and might you rely on the good intentions of russia's president and iran's premier. it cannot leave syrian civilians defenseless and it certainly can't wait for an iso- plan, mass slaughter, operation and the united states to defeat these people in syria. at the very least the administration should be a syria in which isil is gone, civilians are protected from atrocities and a decent alternative to the regime itself is taking root in areas liberated from isil and expanding into rebel controlled areas of northwest and southwest syria. an authority that can build an and all the syrian national stabilization force that could if need be eventually oust the

regime that made isil possible in the first place, a regime whose continued existence sustains isil. if my assumptions about russia and iran are wrong they would oppose none of this. indeed if my assumptions were wrong they would promote inclusive syrian government they signed up for at vienna and will send their client packing forthwith. >> the assumptions that frederick hoff is out there? >> thank you very much. thank you very much for inviting me here. my problem is much easier than mr. holt because i was asked to speak about the aims of their russian accidents in syria so some of my presentation with

several points and if i have time -- so if one looks on the major driver that were mentioned already a chance for mr. putin to confound the united states and policy of intervention. lucia pose for many years beginning before mr. putin came to power. he and mr. putin see the possibilities to stop the american involvement and to counter it so this is i think the first direction behind his actions. the second one i would say russia belongs to.

putin wants to intervene in syria and claiming russia's once again a global power just so -- to draw attention to his homeland. of course actions in syria as a superpower nevertheless it is some kind of -- for a new regional state calling for -- once again. the next point of course is using the possibility mr. putin wants to find some common ground

, with both the united states and europe on the counter terrorists intended to find out some grounds to restore the relationship between russia and the united states and the rest in general which are in bad shape it to the ukrainian conflict. these are the three drivers and there are more concrete issues. five of them domestic and international. domestically first of all mr. putin wants to have a small war outside of the russian borders. for claiming and showing his fellow citizens is needs and is once again active in the mobile arena. the second is of course is the change of focus from economic issues. during his first 10 years in

power the political ones in the geopolitical determinations because economies don't do so well as everyone knows and since mr. putin has returned to the kremlin and the gdp growth rates are falling down from around 4.9% in the first quarter of 20122 -- and we have a think around 4% of gdp this year. mr. putin needs to turn attention from economic issues to political issues and geopolitical and military one so this is also an element of the strategy. the third one is of course to turn the attention of russian citizens to a new one, because everything which happens in the ukraine is not so encouraging and mr. putin doesn't have an

incentive to go out into eastern ukraine. therefore it needs another point in the world to present himself as a hero they are. the two latest issues are first of all during several years the military in russia were not in very good shape because first of all the minister of defense involved in ukraine and military operations. it was not publicly announced in northern ukraine. it was some kind of hidden operation and therefore now they have the possibility for the first time in many years do it openly to test military capabilities so to protect in this way, to protect russia outside. the military industrial complex

which is quite them porton provides 15 to 17% of jobs in russia and being supportive of mr. putin. the last one of course is a terror threats because fighting terrorists may be in some grotesque away was for many years mr. putin a big gain and now once again this issue of the fight mr. putin wants to get the dash on this issue. three reasons for international scale is of course the relationship with iran because they were in alia russia and the middle east. now after the iranian nuclear deal and after the sanctions were lifted in january for iran russia feels its european plans

so putin somehow maneuvers to retain or regain the good relationship with iran is a common cause of stabilizing syria because as was mentioned it's a very crucial issue for the iranian up politicians to have control on syria and assad. the second is fired he said some kind of cooperation with the united states on antiterrorist agenda and what we have seen in new york and the terrorists visit to moscow proves that putin is quite successful at this than the last but maybe not the least point is mr. putin wants to make some kind of -- over ukraine. i will finish with this. i think the russians will definitely try to stabilize the situation and to keep assad powerful as long as he can.

i think they will launch a ground -- maybe not an expensive one but they will. of course i would say i don't trust the russian leadership in some kind of decent negotiation with the west. they have different agendas so i can't see any political compromise. the last is american strategy because it was mentioned today. i would say i doubt someone can achieve a victory. i really doubt that we can speak in the future about uniting around syria. think the best way to do the job is actually to make a petitioning of the state because

it's really unviable for years to come. maybe mr. assad and continue his rule in the country but i'm completely sure that he will never succeed in defeating isis or brazil in the coming years. i think of mr. putin wants to do this, let him try, and if you want to have a very necessary and good ally on the ground you should openly speak about the possibility of an independent state. so i think syria is gone. the strong coalition with russia is out of the question. thank you.

>> i see a painful overlap in your validation of the assumptions particularly struck by your point that you don't see a common purpose between what russia is about and what secretary carries about for example. that is a very sobering thought. so we are back in the zero-sum game days, we were going to split today's program into this first panel to talk about how we got here with the idea on the second panel would be where we go from here. there is substantial overlap and i don't know if you want to have the presenters were find anything before before we go to the other commentators on this. >> thank you very much and thank you for inviting me here. i enjoyed reading both papers very much and i really don't disagree with anything that you said. i'm going to confine my remarks to russia and russian goals and maybe reinforce some of the

words you said but that you weren't going to get any good news for me either. just to reinforce what you said that russia has multiple goals in its campaign today in syria and some but not all are actually related to syria itself paid i wanted to just say a few more words about the broader context to both of you have already alluded to. to insist that the u.s. and its allies recognize that russia's interests here are as legitimate if not more legitimate than the wes goals so he has forced the united states to deal with them since this began after the u.s. and its allies for 18 months to try to isolate russia because of what's happened in the ukraine and i think you'd be quite successful in it because right now he's the go-to man if you want to get something done on syria as we saw with secretary carries visit to moscow a few days ago.

i think a second context here is putin does believe that russia not only has a right to influence the dash in the talk about the need for new order and things like that but i think italy's russia has the right also to establish, to reestablish its influence in areas beyond russia particularly the middle east where the soviet union has a lot of influence and when russia lost with the collapse of the soviet union. i see this as a broader strategy of russia to -- and put the middle east. if you look at the last six months we have had the leaders of each of saudi arabia jordan kuwait united arab republic and israel. saudi arabia at least on paper promised a 10 billion-dollar investment in russia which would be mainly in the agricultural year. we were talking about this with

mark a forehand. that may not well happened and if it did happen it would be the largest single investment in russia. given the history of russia's relations with saudi arabia that is in itself a very interesting data point if you like. the new element in russian policy in this part of the world since the soviet collapse russian israeli relationships and the fact that israel's point of view bashar al-assad may not be the desired leader but what might come after him in terms of israel's security. this is russia rwanda and the west to recognize it has a right to reestablish its influence on the part of the world. i also believe a lot of this is about domestic politics in russia. i won't go into this but obviously you have as you point out a folding economy, low oil prices. they keep going down under 40

dollars an hour -- 40 dollars a barrel now. ukraine disappeared from russian tv and assault international now. putin has to keep showing himself as a strong leader who can deal with these threats to russia. there's a basic paradox that you see here at the moment because the united states continues to be demonized in russian media and if you listen to some of their statements we have mr. never shed a couple of days ago saying it's time to abolish nato when he was speaking in serbia. you have an image of it states that you also have now the public face of mr. putin again saying in his press conference a very interesting press conference yesterday that russia and the u.s. the two big powers to join together and lead this coalition against the islamic

state and it's going to be like the anti-hitler during world war ii. then you really have to ask yourself is there some kind of it cognitive dissonance between these two approaches to dealing with the united states. just take couple of comments on the russian view of president assad in this authority been said. from britain's point of view the support for assad has to do with russia's own goals in syria but it also has to do with this issue of regime change. putin is putting russia forward as the champion of established sovereign governments all around the world. obviously from russian point of view a secular strongman in serious but preferable to anything else that putting russia forward is at the center of these kinds of rules in that part of the world is supposed to the state, russia's power post to the u.n. that goes around the

world trying to do regime change. i found it during testing testit mr. kerry finally said in moscow interested in regime change which i don't think any u.s. officials have quite said it that way before. from the russian point of view president putin pointed out the u.s. abandon president mubarak and abandoned moammar gadhafi. this is all about supporting legitimately from russia's point of view in this part of the world. and another interesting thing is the conference in october mr. putin said that russia doesn't really distinguish between islamic state and other opposition groups in syria. as far as russia is concerned they are all terrorists. i know we have had other things have recently and couldn't really say that russia was supporting the free syrian army?

there's also that kind of feeling that you cannot distinguish between the different groups in syria. so i think going forward, i think it's unlikely that the u.s. and russia are going to be able to work together to form a coalition to defeat the islamic state. i agree with what was said before that russian islamic state isn't the issue. supporting the assad government, maybe a government that might as russia has to say and retains its influence there and so i think it's highly unlikely that this is going to work nor can i really see russia and the united states agreeing on a transition in syria because again it's a fundamentally different view of mr. assad and what might happen after him.

the press is going to happen between us and rushes to continue to constrict air operations and we will continue talking in this different form but i think that's the most we can accomplish. >> thank you. [laughter] >> i would like to thank the atlantic council for inviting me as well and both papers i thought were extremely interesting. in fact frederick hoff i agree so much and i agree this point the russian iran are more focused on supporting asaad than defeating isil. also moscow support for scott is important in defeating america's democratization jihad. moscow seeks to eliminate all syrian alternatives to assad and isil thereby leaving the west with a choice between assad and isil ruling syria and as worse

as an alternative. i also think he's right in saying that the mosques have the main utility of the delaying tactic during which moscow can support assad and it's not an actual conflict resolution process. i believe with his overall critique of the obama administration policy calling for assad to step aside, at least they used to but not doing anything to make this happen were to stop assad from targeting his own population with conventional means. i do disagree with hoff on one point. he argued that if it's necessary to defeat iceland syria in order to prevent further attacks such as the recent one in paris and even if isil was in serious which attacks could still occur. isil exists in many other places besides syria even if isil were eliminated everywhere other eliminated everywhere other

javascript sense of the fighters could could launch such attacks. these concerns of course do not mean that if you can isil serious not worthwhile goal but we must be realistic about what will result from a parent i find hoff's strategy for the u.s. and syria to be quite sensible and this explains why it won't be lamented. [laughter] seriously russia and iran are not the only actors in syria for comment defeat of isil is not the highest priority. indeed while almost every actor supports the school is not the highest priority for any of them. i think for turkey keeping the kurds down is more important than defeating isil. for saudi arabia and the gulf states iran's presence in syria is more of a threat than his isil. for the obama administration the possibility of another large-scale u.s. military intervention, that's more of a threat than isil. for the e.u., for jordan, for

lebanon refugee flows are more of a threat than isil and so i think this is a problem. everyone opposes isil but everyone has some more important goal but they pursue and therefore it's not priority, not an actual priority for anyone. turning to the paper i agree with most of his point is well especially putin is motivated not just by concerns about syria but larger geopolitical and domestic concerns and formulating his policy for that country. i think he is the non-the nuclear agreement was something that worried moscow and russian intervention in syria allows moscow that quote from and to find new points of cooperation that could prevent iran's unpredictable moves both in political and economic issues i.e. moving somehow toward the west. i also agree with him that moscow may feel compelled to introduce ground forces into

syria as assad controls a little there despite russian or support as we have learned air support alone doesn't protect the weak ally. if this operation does occur soon as he indicates russian hopes to emerge naturally as a leading force of any perspective antiterrorist coalition in my view may remain unfulfilled. the basic problem of putin's approach to syria as outlined as well as is directed against west it's also intended to gain western support for russia as not just a member but the leader of the coalition against isil and terrorism in general. even though the u.s. does not oppose aggression of -- in syria against isil. there's another alternative and that is to simply let russia suffer from all of the ill effects of intervention in the middle east that washington is

all too familiar with in moscow should be as well. this refers to the believe in moscow that america will somehow be forced to cooperate with moscow in syria and elsewhere that this is not inevitable by any means. those in the west who may calculate that at a time when russian hostility for the west is rising it's much better for the west bogged down and middle eastern conflict. the obama administration does not think in such michael verland terms. a recent visit by secretary kerry to moscow during which he reportedly backed off from washington's previous admission that the assad has to go agreeing with moscow's position that the same people should decide prince said. in john kerry's defense i like to say he and mr. lavrov clearly have different expectations about what it is that the syrian people will decide about assad but it obviously is a change in

approach and when the moscow welcomes. this leads me to the observation about putin's call for broad alliance against isil. everyone is familiar with the adage vietnamese my enemy is my friend but there's another adage about alliance that goes as follows. on the premise of an alliance comes to an end the alliance itself comes to an end. the western allies and the soviet union quickly disagreed about who should govern in eastern europe. to suggest that a vice was defeated for his strength appears to be significantly degraded differences about who should govern syria among the coalition partners fighting isil will reemerge as strong as ever. if moscow intends to deploy it ground shifts to syria put me populate -- apostolate their presence may be the deciding factor just as the end of world

war ii was the deciding factor but they came to power there. sunni powers set by saudi arabia though may see what became of the soviet occupation of afghanistan in the 1980s as the guiding analogy for what could happen to what they will see as a russian occupation in syria. the united states even the obama administration may not be employing mock a billion logic it's allowing moscow to take the lead in syria may enable the next administration to do so. thank you. >> thank you for addressing that point. i was going to ask it as we have actually heard white house versus the people's taking to the russians being caught in the syrian quagmire and welcome to it. it's something we can soon prevent. ambassador feca give us a perspective on all of you for her but also this question arab

world reaction to what russia is doing and are they calculating their long-term interest are making serious miscalculations here? >> but me start by saying i'm going to be the devil's advocate frankly. one because i enjoyed and secondly i think it's necessary to have the russian discussion about this. secondly given the last speaker i want to throw out my conclusion for someone explain why. this is not about whether you going to engage russia or compete with russia or whether you are going to cooperate with russia. you can do all three of those at the same time. it's simply a reality that either the u.s., the west russia or for that matter iran and has a conclusive tool in his hand to solve the syrian issue or to deal with isis alone.

we are going to have to do all of that at the same time. the real question isn't whether we do that. the real question is are we going to pursue crisis management or conflict resolution and they are two different things. that applies to the isis issue and applies to the syrian issue. depending on whether we decide we want to limit the damage to solve the problem is a level of cooperation that we can achieve without pushing it. on the other hand if you are trying to resolve the problem then there's going to have to be a grand bargain not only between the u.s. and russia but also regional players because they will all have to make serious compromises. but by strategic rather than tactical. >> with that go back a little bit. i'm always provoked by my background that goes along with

with -- people telling me who has the right to intervene in my region. what seemed to be provoking people here is that russia has the right. what gives them the right? i need you in any directions. it's not a matter of whether you will be there or not. i won't advise you as i would advise the russians to come and help us address these issues because frankly i can't solve them alone. as was said by the speakers here does anybody believe he you can deal with isis without ground forces? who will put them there? will be americans, with the russians? we will have to find a way to work together.

the issue is how much we do this and how much not but let me go back to the russian issue. when i was foreign minister at the time for assisi we met president putin and spent an hour with him. 45 minutes he spoke about extremism and the threats to russia from extremist and we went through the whole package of extremes. 10 minutes western which is political a few minutes on geopolitics and we spent a little bit of time in at least egyptian terms and hours more than 15 minutes so we spent some time on egypt and russia. i actually believe and it doesn't contradict what's been said in the papers here but it complements it. i think those are the reasons. i think he is serious about his

concern about extremism. there's no question that he is angry about his perceived his country is treated by the west and its political interests. that's not questioning there. clearly he has that interest. my question to all of you frankly is can you do without the russians? is how you do it with the russians wet -- rather than give the russians the role are not. nobody here is looking at the age bracket here. nobody believes that any of us pursue policies out of interest so we obviously have an agenda. we obviously have an interest but the positive side that i see in all of this is we all know we can't do it alone. so there'll be a point in time where we will have to start engaging the others and probably there will be said that where we move away.

i am from my contacts with the russians over the last year. they know very clearly that their operations are not sustainable long-term, that they need to move from that faced with political phase. i would argue also i don't think the vienna talks took us to a new level but there's no question that the intervention by the russians created a sense of urgency be it that the west got scared they would play the role again or on the ground that all the parties came together for the first time, the regional parties as well and came to be enough. he created a sense of urgency that this issue has to be dealt with. in that respect i actually find the intervention as a tool, not the policy. i see it tactically as having had a reasonably positive

effects. now is the policy right, it depends on if this ends up being different party simply using force without the policy paradigm that we are going to try to solve the isis issue or the syrian issue than you were going to have a lot of different forces on the ground and it will be very dangerous for all of us. therefore the result would be much more negative than positive but if it causes all the different parties as i think henry kissinger said recently that the russians have been in the middle east after the 70 were -- 73 war and now they are back and they are back for a reason. nobody else was there and there were a lot of problems. as a middle eastern or frankly i will engage the west as much as they can to help solve what's happening in the middle east and i will engage the russians equally so to help solve that.

the middle eastern perspective there is tremendous sensitivity and a little bit of an exaggeration frankly as to how many conspirators -- conspiracies the west has managed to get the middle east where it is. i'm not a big conspiracy fan although you give me a lot of ammunition to think and move in that direction. nevertheless we can't solve this without russia. my argument to all of you frankly is sure they have agenda and sure they want to play a role there but how can i take advantage of that rather then is this going to need a coalition where we all embrace the same goals exact weight and walk at the same pace or is her competition necessarily mutually exclusive where we have to -- more than we gain.

it depends. i frankly believe engaging russia is a good thing and i also believe they understand there's only so much you can do without engaging other parties but i'm not ready to say yet that this step per se is the beginning of the situation. that bit depends on the politics after that. >> beyond the sectarian issues that are involved there and the motivations of the gulf states versus iran or iran's sectarian motivations do you detect all your travels across the region of the world much sensitivity to the humanitarian cost and she became the blame for that to iranians and russians and a seib

1.0 world diplomacy ought to be at least agreement on fact, and stopping the girl bombing. some sort of cease-fire that we stops to degradations against civilians and it's clear what the source of that is. it's russian-made aircraft flown by syrian pilots presumably with russian matériel. is there sensitivity there or is that not even in the secondary or tertiary level of conversation and? >> six or seven months ago i would argue that you could look could look at the center of east of the arab middle east as being more sensitive to western interventions then russian interventions have been. they are more sensitive about the russian intervention. now whether it's because of realpolitik or otherwise they're

still is a lot more sensitivity to russian intervention in the western part of the world. there's a larger degree of realism that well can they be pushed in a positive direction and how many arabs leaders have been there? i think this is a good point. we will have agreements and disagreements with the russians. i don't question it. we don't necessarily agree on everything they do and we don't disagree on everything they do either but can we afford to do it without them? if we could frankly i would do it and i believe he can. i actually believe that while they may have policies that we differ with they are rational people pursuing those policies. i believe in the value of diplomacy and trying to engage them because i have no other alternative. secondly i am ready to have for

living end quote unquote the aviation term and an open society and open skies there will be competition. it doesn't concern me that much but the point that i think as a middle eastern or we have to emphasize much more is that the debate should be about whether it affects western interests or the u.s. involvement effects of russian interest but it really should be focused first, not exclusively but first on does this help solve the problems of the region and? that's really my point and part of that leads me to come to conclusions that are completely realpolitik. do i think we can -- if there was a clear solution to how we move from where we are in the tragedies and syria to a new syria we would do it but there isn't. i could drop a couple of formulas, the process of getting

there is very complicated and one of the issues that have been raised how long first of all does he or does he not and how long is because bashar stay is one of the questions? clearly you are negotiating with syria. shouldn't be the reinvention of the old syria but to get there i can't simply talk to my friends. i have to talk to the other parties on the ground and as angry as i understand and respect and agree that with the syrian opposition and their anger with bashar there are a lot of other despicable characters frankly on the ground that are of tremendous threat to the middle east so again it's not simply am going to talk to the others comes complicated so because the complexity we need to engage each other as mature rational people and understand that i may differ with you on some interest but nevertheless

it's better to me -- for me to engage residents say your interest or different than mine and we will play cards. if i may take the privilege of asking you about assad nobody mentioned the word turkey which along with each of the neira borfitz close to my heart and a lot of my professional experiences there. seems to me there is banned major turn and turkish relations quite a dramatic one. i was there until a year ago and they had visits back and forth between then prime minister and president. people around person erdogan praising putin to the skies publicly and very dramatic turn even before the late november shootdown of the airplane and russian turkish relations going

back almost to a cold war kind of rhetoric making us all rather anxious. do you have any insight or comment on how that is playing and how that is factoring into mr. putin's outlook on the region and what he is trying to do in syria? oregon prospects for managing it? ..

>> >> in to now once again proved that he is strong and can somehow with that economic relationship to change the russians. but what is going on with turkey from moscow now from the up propaganda. >> if you read what he said yesterday in his press conference i will not repeat it because it was not very polite but linking turkey with the u.s. is now part of

the propaganda that you see that russian officials say to threaten they even have things on russian tv. >>. >> and as far as the other russian airplane going down over syenite are they overcoming that? >> i would be surprised frankly. there is the official committee that is investigating that. they are bound by the public statements to have conclusive evidence from the past experience they cannot

say we expect this to rethink "this is it" so ultimately it will come out much later than other officials. the russians have said publicly there is a difference between the russians and the committee but that is not its role. whatever it is coming is a tragedy we need to find out if it was done by a terrorist or not. but nobody has questioned if there is terrorism then we will make an announcement frankly. it will never be an excuse but if it is clear it is a much clearer answer there is

no reason to hide this. >> in the country's move toward collaboration. >> just yesterday we invited the eu's security team but we are a nation we only thrive if we have tourists did if they feel comfortable beyond how much it cost. >> so now we will open to the audience.

>> a very good panel i would like to address my question but let me start by saying clearly the misconceived strategically catastrophic from the united states disrupted the unstable status quo made that transition of unnecessary a violent and faster and everything you could say and probably help to create but nevertheless when we look at the problem, the lack of arab leadership for the willingness to participate and help weather militarily militarily, syrian refugees except jordan and lebanon that is the weakest of the week the local states are completely preoccupied with

their allergy to iran they don't talk about syria or isis. the lack of cohesion and egypt is a big country with an armed u.s. military. maybe you cannot do it without the international community that is now the russian and american problem, but how do we do it without something coming out of the arab world? so far it is next to nothing >> there is no answer. but the public and say there is next to nothing. the egyptian propose to the ground forces. we need the capacity and the tools. that has not gone through yet. that is open for debate and some countries are uncomfortable with that.

today there was another coalition but that is just the beginning it does reflect the arab world is looking at what they can do. i understand there is no question of vegetarian pressure and you said correctly they have carried a lot of this even egypt even though it isn't on board has about 100,000 refugees and the kuwaitis frankly have had an annual conference to provide financial support. will this be solved completely? no. there for the point i made is there is so much distrust in the region son in the

west and russia unless we have a better understanding understanding, a grand bargain, you will not get a strong commitment of russian forces. unless we have a stronger political understanding. that as well like to say have the answer but i don't have the answer. to talk with those who may compete with the with a different agenda. i think this is your point they need to do more and i have been saying that for years. >> and also calling for the year of stabilization force

for a year of contributions on his annual poll that came now one week ago that showed substantial public support which was surprising. more than i had detected. >> nevertheless if the united states were to mount that type of diplomatic campaign i think it should as an alternative to the president being forced to deploy american soldiers and marines in the wake of the incident occurring in the united states. i think the assumption certainly at the leadership level a very, very suppressed appetite to put ground forces into eastern syria against isil. this is an appetite that

would have to be stimulated by the united states. i would not try to short change or understate the difficulty this particular administration would be making to make the case that we're in this for a the duration and provide leadership with the skin in the game so maybe there is substantial growing popular support for a decisive intervention but it is my assumption that the leadership level the appetite for ground intervention would be under control. >> you have your hand up if you are part of the next panel but from an eastern europe perspective? or do want to save it? okay. we will jump over to this

side. >> my question to the panel is the question the russian offensive. let's be very candid it is a flop to date. progress is measured in scant kilometers, they have maybe 50 aircraft mostly with of the guided bombs and under the soviet union there were 8,000 troops stationed in syria at the time. look at the current ratio of the russian military that is seven / one if you work through the military

requirements to maintain a sustained operation i put to the panel, we can do it. more importantly the iranians have taken enormous casualties much as the senior generals but at the second lieutenant level. and the panel may know they talk about that on state tv and there are reports the iranian troops are pulling out meaning that the russians themselves will have to add more ground pounders and i put out how much what we see with putin is the same he tried to do with ukraine? he has tried to get away with a lot of the cheap. when push comes to shove, it can you really do? >> a very good question.

id his trying to achieve some credibility actually a with say economically or financially to send in ground troops to syria because it is cheap compared if they do this are not my position is they will try in the future the department of defense said they will play a role. but the russians come into question that as it unfolds this is my point of

course, there will submit -- not succeed except for the local forces then they should promise with the independent state but no russians or americans but my point is they feel as i will leave but how? i don't know. >> the point several of you made that the russians are not trying to succeed against isis. >> yes. but even in gauging in that operation