>> people forget that the way the deal to get a new start ratified is that the president that was critical to get sufficient votes, second point, i won't go through the laundry list of systems, but the chinese

and the russians are putting new system in the field right now, submarines in the water. the new bomber late 20's, the ground -- new icbm late 20's, so there's a lot of catching up to do and we are not provokeing and i directly oversaw, i directed u.s. nuclear talk, i interacted with two presidents and multiple secretaries of defense. it is a complete section that notion of passing nuclear threshold is the most serious decision any president would

recommend, the notion that it's half a kilton. the president would use the weapon more suitable for the test. modernizing the force leads to increase possibility. any president, any secretary of defense, any secretary of state. >> certainly the use of any weapon would be strategic, they provide flexibility. >> final question residential fellow here. >> thank you for this very interesting panel. i have a question which relates

to something that was strikingly absent, i think, from the debate and this is the c, -- ctbt, nobody believes that it would be ratified, what's your opinion on that, i think that's the question to the whole panel or whoever wants to answer. >> there was a panel a few months ago that secretary kerry engaged, the conclusion of that was that it would take a great deal of ground work to get ctpt ratified. if the u.s. ratification would bring the treaty into effect that would be a strong argument i suppose for pressing ahead.

the country that haven't, that will not join, pakistan, north carolina. certainly the united states is obeying, under the bush 41 administration. people ought to focus on ctbt. there were two questions that opponents raised. first that the ct be t was not verifiable and secondly that you would not maintain weapons without testing. i think we have made a lot of progress since then, i think what we have seen on a verification side of the house

that through the international monitoring system we have dramatically improved our ability to verify nuclear explosions. furthermore and i think the directors have certified this is that we have been able to maintain weapons without testing. however, if you look at the u.s. senate i believe 80% of the senators who are now in the senate weren't present during ratification debate. and as frank noted, there have not been a great deal of discussion about the benefits of the ctbt. instead of pushing for ratification this time what the administration is focused on the education process, discussing

the merits with the public but more importantly the merits of the ctbt with members of the senate, many of whom are not knowledgeable about the pacifics of the treaty. >> bob, we are going to give you the large word. are you optimistic or pessimistic than you were a decade or more about at the nuclear -- >> yes, i am. [laughter] >> thank you for that appropriate nonanswer. i would like to thank all those in attendance in c-span and other networks, please join me in thanking our panel. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> today treasury secretary jack lew and how they've evolved. live coverage for international piece begins at 8:45 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> tonight on c-span the supreme court case that is shaped our history come to life with the c-span series land mark cases, historic supreme court decisions, our 12-part series explores real-life stories behind most significant in u.s. history. >> the constitution is a

political document. sets up political structures but also a law, if it's a law, we have the courts to tell what it means. >> that's exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make decisions about debates? >> tonight, we will look at the case that limit it had privileges of citizenship guarantied by the amendment that failed out of the constitution, the slaughter house cases. >> this week on c-span we are featuring program on increase of drug abuse and the situation of the current supreme court vai cranky -- vacancy, we look at the government's handling of the

issue including comments from president obama and presidential candidate ted cruz. >> it's certainly not going to be washington, d.c. that steps in and solve these problems. it's going to be friends and family, churches, charities, loved ones, treatment centers, people working to help those who are struggling overcome their addiction, drug addiction is a disease. >> we are not new to this, we released first strategy and we followed that up in 2011 with prevention plan, we are implementing plans and partnering to reduce drug use

and reduce everdose deaths. >> with an apparent impasse between democrats, the white house and republicans over the next supreme court justice, we look at what today's leaders have said in the past concerning nominating process of individuals to the supreme court. >> in my view, confirmation hearings no matter how long, how fruitful b and thorough can determine if a nominee merits a seat on our supreme court. >> a thoughtful senator should realize that any benefits banning opponent from the court, are not likely to outweigh the court's institutional standard. freedman goes on,.

>> some of the programs featured on c-span. >> yesterday russian journalists contact pal ticks. the state of journalism and organizations in russia from the center on global interest in washington this is an hour and a half. >> hello, let's start. my name with central and global interests. we have an outstanding panel today and i hope -- it kind of reminds 1990's.

we are going back a century. [laughter] >> i guess i didn't do a very good job then, but we will try again. so we have -- another way i'm welcoming you on april 14th, you'll have a discussion of u.s.-russia relations, tom graham and andy hutchins. we have one american here to be

polite. i will moderate this event and we will try to keep it as informal as possible and i will speak 15 minutes to talk and then we will have question and answer sessions. >> i know you all have a program running but i'm going to get a little bit by the person who is can't be here today. russia's domestic outlook, we are lucky to offer you access to ideaser's perfective. the country's domestic situation remains in flux. kremlin appears to want to make

legitimate. political activists who share inside the political situation, state of the media and future of opposition. introductions from your left with anton ryzhov and the kennedy institute is our partner in today's event. he served as a lawyer for the committee against torture, russian nonprofit organization, police brutality and provides legal assistant to victims of torture. international law and represents human victims, a year and a half doing field work, one of the most troubled regions in russia. member of the public oversight commission, 2007-2013, published

more than 2,000 works on various legal topics. hosted numerous programs in russia. she's the author, producer of 36-episode parallels people and events. a civil activist and writer, was awarded the prize with the moscow group. currently host of moscow radio. she's also in kenneth institute. and to natella's left russian

liberal journalist, television radio host video maker, snob.ru. russia's oldest and circulation monthly magazine. editor and chief of the russian edition. he produced a russian rake, received the number award and human rights. this was not shown on russian tv. 2004-

was one of the founders of the platform party. member of the civil society of human rights, media and arts communities, advise the president on section of human rights and society in russia and last but not least nikolai, adviser to president, moved to the states in '93. associated with a variety of b institutions and go-between american politics and community focused on russia and well published both in english and russia and most importantly now serves as an interpreter of american culture for russian audience which is an important role. with that i will turn to nikolai

and he can give me conversation. >> thank you, mike. we will start with my right. i think we'll have the three of them speak and then question and answer session. >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen, actually i'm looking forward for this part for questions and answers because i do like informal communication and i believe that's the most convenient answer to the questions here actually interested in. but if i do have to make certain statement, i would like to say what i think about the future of russia and describe three scenarios for the future of russia for the next few years and i would like to start with a quote. 26 year's ago in the pages of foreign affairs, richard

attorney general of the united states warned about what would happen if strike was reforms in russia failed. the primary problem is to prevent the new soviet union from becomeing version of the other monarchy to foster instead to political pluralism, respect for human rights. what he foresaw happened precisely. that generation of russian reformers failed. we can -- we are witnesses of this right now. the current elites in moscow exist because off and around putin, they realize perfectly well what the deed to their

predecessors to replace we era and perfectly what elites did to replace the soviet. that was persecution, exile and confiscation, there's a power to do for their power not to change them. they would not themselves be subject to prosecution, persecution, exile and confiscation, and that's why today -- today they're doing anything to forestall the day when something would change for them. but the thing is the system created what they call a vertical of power is that a system that actually does not work. the system that has led russia

to where it is now, the huge economic crisis, the -- what would call the bulldog under the carpet, the fight between the elites, and the elites are beginning to understand that if nothing is done this will eventually lead to their replacement in a more or less violent way. they would be replaced in the same way as the press elites. what are the scenarios for russias and what can be done to avoid the worse? the first scenario that i personally see and i'm not the only one here, let's call it stagnation under putin, when i

say staying nation i mean both economy and political life, and you know perfectly well that there was a so-called was stagnation period and that period is actually add fired by a lot of russians specially the older generations, the pension pensioneers, retirees. well, they did not realize that stagnation still with pretty high oil prices and stagnation under putin is pretty much different and import substitution or import has so far been less successful innovation.

where any you decide to use, regime complete control automatic and is treated as such directly or indirectly members of the putin team control every part, every sector of the russian economy including small and medium-size enterprises. well, i'm sure -- well, i'm not sure if you know, but it was destruction of moscow's treat in february of this year and that situation just merely underline it had tendency, anything else

that the elites control is pretty vulnerable and classic refrain of small, medium-size businesses, you don't need to help us, just don't bother us. now, pretty often sounds like a revolutionary, something pretty close to an extremist to revolution in today's russia. ranking official in the putin's administration, once said without putin there is no russia, and it is the thesis of the putin stig nation period. any criticism from the regime no matter where it comes from western, liberals or from

business people, truck drivers, whoever will be either silenced from the budget or be treated as provocation from the west and treated as consequence. state ruled by personality rather than ruled by law. what i foresee is elites will continue to fight among themselves regularly and publicly declaring their love and loyalty to putin, swearing, i don't know, up on their willingness to fall on a grenade in the fight against external or internal enemies.

president, federal agencies like internal affairs, they have been playing this game already for years with many corpses to show for it. the pressure, this fight will only increase and, yes, there will be campaigns from time to time which will be initiated by corrupt deputies and corrupt officers and there will be sacrifices, some bureaucrats wanting to bite a big piece of the pie will probable you be shown to the public but not really high-ranking, not very

influential public figures. although as the stagnation continues and as the pie becomes smaller and smaller, i'm sure that certain conflicts will become public and since putin is used to this role as what arb itro, the scandal can reflect on putin's imagine then serious figures will need to be sacrificed. putin is one of -- one of putin's most treasured traits is loyalty. he says he never gives out his people but what i think, of course, he will continue to defend his people but at some point when the conflicts become

public, a combination of scandal and shortage is likely to create a situation where a member of his team must be sacrificed for real and not just demoted with kid gloves as form ermine ster. -- former minister. protests with a combination of well-financeed and people will buy that, the confrontation with the west will continue and the worst thing about this stagnation scenario is that it will eventually lead like i said before to the replacement of the elites in peace in more or less violent ways. and one of the most violent ways

that it can happen is that a third force comes to power. what third force am i talking about? the committee of january 25th, which was created on january 25th of this year, the hero of donbass and he and some other guys including edward, famous russian writer and some politicians from previous administrations also in that committee and said they criticized hard both the putin administration and they said that what putin is in doing his people are committing suicide in front of everybody, but on the other hand, they also criticize

criticized to western liberals and they promised parallels. they said, yes, we are the third force and we will come to power exactly in a way because as you may heard, they didn't hear and in less than a year they took power and took the world upside down in the next century. so this guys, the third force claims they will read russia of corruption. they will unit russians that have been separated by borders and they can be done without use of military force. this is probably the worst scenario which is pretty bath for both existing elites and the liberal opposition.

.. >> i found very interesting article that said that the newspapers of the country are filled with good news, the jails of that country will be filled with good people. i think that if we talked about the situation with media in russia, media is also the part of society.

so i cannot tell anything, think in common with steps that. so we have three parts, tv, radio and newspapers. of course, we have internet. that is around all of these parts. we of so-called state channels. some of the jokes that all of them are first channels, because if we try to tell you some details of the content of our state channels. i can remember rape girl, country boy, the grandfathers of them, liberals. here are the things people say from the streets.

i got another page of the story of media after russians invaded crimea. because i asked mr. daniel, alexander daniel who was the son, what was the reaction of society when soviet troops invaded, and he answered you cannot imagine. that propaganda was more or less than the modern russian propaganda. so i'm not a user a state jail. i don't want to answer which channel of watching now so nobody, my family, watches modern russian tv. but you see situations with internet is so that every interesting article, every interesting film you can find on internet and social net and elsewhere. state channels of some use, some products from internet, and so it's some kind of a circle.

by the way, a very big difference from the period of the soviet media is that every event is shown on internet. so you can understand everythi everything. when they're on the street, actions in russia, people look like this. they go and they make picture. everyone can understand everything what's going. and so we will ask ourselves why people, don't they care of what is going in russia? they don't want to take care. and so media, but our entertainment. media, sometimes they make some kind of awful things to persons, their audience, that everything is going right. because when they speak about

our troops in the ukraine, they say that we are right. and here in washington, my colleague from kennan institute, she visited the ukraine and people already in hospital, they have no hands, no feet. they are victims. and when we speak about conflict between ukraine and russia come it's not a conflict. it's a war. we have radio stations represented kommersant, which is well-known rita. i'm representative of echo moscow which is also well-known writer, but it seems to me when our editor in chief is asked why putin need you to broadcast, the answer, there are several reasons. first reason, they themselves from kremlin they should get some use from any source. so he thinks moscow minister is

a good source. the second reason is that we need some short case, if some person from the west comes to moscow and he asks where is the freedom of broadcasting of the world, they can answer kommersant. and the third reason it seems to me very important reason, radio has no meaning as a social propaganda. with our elections in russia, you can see the people the our politics on any channel. but if you will listen, there are also people from opposition and they didn't have enough audience to get their voices for

voting. it will be not true if i say that there is no freedom of media in russia. there is freedom of media, but sometimes this media company a very narrow audience because there are some internet media as daily journal that are now forbidden in russia. there was one small detail. in 1975, for instance, if somebody accused the person of spreading public mailing information, he would prove it in the court. and now they came close, they can restrict the ability to fight this media without any sentence. so when you are in washington,

in britain, and europe, you can find this very website and no problem. and if you'll try to open them from russia the mirror, it's not a simple procedure. what about radio additionally? maybe some of you remember that several months ago it was a conflict between editor-in-chief and mr. schlesinger the reason for the conflict was that twitter of one of our journalists, and they tried to force him to fire off the gentlemen. and they said it is the prerogative to do it and he refused to do. then later said that he would try to fire him and so.

he won this conflict but it was also a very interesting page when people from some other structure try to make independence journalist to do something. you can say that there is no -- in russia. may be all right because it seems to me it was soviet writer, some writer who said tell me who tries to influence you and i will answer a page you. so i think that the whole situation where the media in russia is set to, rather set. because there are some restrictions of getting information. my colleagues, my big friends, frankly speaking i don't have the sense of the work really because they have their own list

of victims and the political scare. i know that they are journalists of the to a lot of things, to do the real job, but it's rather difficult in russia. i know of the many journalists who i invited to kremlin, not exactly to kremlin but sometimes some people try to meet them, to offer them something. not long ago it was very funny story published in social net about the young journalist who got call from federal special service, and he said i want to meet you, but i don't want to meet you, she answered. we can offer you some exclusive information. you will be proud of us. she said that she doesn't like it. and then she was frightened, she was scared. she thought next day they will come to her and do more damage.

and she began to clean her house, and she found very interesting things. she was scared a lot again, if in the she decided to shrink and then she decides to be afraid of them no more. so i know some people will i invited who are the figures of crusading. and i know it's difficult for him, for them. i'm also the situation it's connected a couple of years ago when he took one of journalists from no focus at the end of force and he said i will kill you and i myself will investigate your assassination. afterwards it was ridiculous story for journalists to moscow, me among them. we went to the building and we now want to make some

protections to bring journalists into the forest. we had no time to do our work because all of us, we were arrested. there was me and others. ladies and gentlemen, on this comp it was not the order of alphabet. it was some wish of those people. eglin said that we had some list of those people who will vote to protest. this day, next day, insulin. we were sitting there for a couple of hours. we, of course, understood that nothing bad would happen with those. but sometimes travelers, especially from internet media, if they are arrested, sometimes

they have broken devices. sometimes they are beaten. and so it seems to me that it is in no way out because every russian person has the ability to get any information from the media, from internet, from twitter and so on. but nobody does anything because i think that the number of protesters is very small. many people had to integrate, and these people, they are active people. i know, i have member of my own family who worked on the elections federal who participated in the street action that he was arrested six or seven times. and after it went, it was understood next and he would know he would be in prison. so we need integrated from

russia, he wrote me a mail that in israel that are hundreds and thousands of those people. some of them tried to go to europe countries, and it seems to me that it looks like top level, looks like the philosopher shop because intellectuals are leaving russia. and i hope such rumor, men who immigrated from russia every month in pairs, putin invites and they have some consultations. they want to attract some questions i believe. and my questions, but why is it the? why is he not in russia? so it seems to me that they hold the action in which they hold the whole society and media, and among them is not perspective direction. it's not good.

thank you. >> okay, thank you, natella. anton, it's your turn. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you. nikolai, thank you for this possibility just to address to you people deserve such crucial topics on human rights. sorry i'm a lawyer so maybe some of my words will not be understood by the audience, so sorry. >> don't worry. >> so i'm not going to talk too much because as stanislav said, i prefer leading dialogue and questions and answers also, but when i was going here in the metro, i just enumerated at least nine topics i'm going to address to you. it's not the whole least of

human rights problems in russia, but it came to my mind. first of all, maybe it's the recent relations human rights issue is of course a trial. you may know that she was sentenced to 22 years of prison term, and last week it was a roundtable at the beginning institute and i said -- kennan institute. i said i had some doubts they're going to exchange or for the two officers of russian intelligence, because she's pretty much, she has pretty much well for russian government

because she is a member of ukrainian parliament and she's a delegate of the parliament, council of europe and she's a hero of russia, ukraine, sorry. sorry. and those officers of intelligence, they just, it's russian official statement that they would do their just by their own, by their own view. they are not officials. there would be no exchange. at the same time mr. kerry visited moscow and he had for our speech, for our meeting with putin. and the question of savchenko was discussed at these meetings. finally, it was, they say we

exchange savchenko for the total amnesty for all rebels, for all fighters in donetsk. and yesterday i read that the american government wouldn't accept ts. but it's very strange because russia talks with the united states about savchenko, not with the ukrainian government. because actually the russian, putin's position, it's my own personal opinion, putin's position that ukraine is not an abandoned state. it's a puppet manipulated by the united states government. so he prefers to talk to the united states, united states officials, not to ukraine.

okay, so that's the problem of the due process because, you know, i watch this process. i know the barristers who protected but the judge refused all the documents and phone printings, phone number printing stencil on. that's the first problem. the second problem is recent constitutional courts about all the international law. it's about the european court, about what's more important, the judgments of european court or the russian legislation, and the constitutional court ruled that he could reverse any of the

european court judgments if it contradicts the constitution. it's very much wide interpretation and, of course, i suppose it was my age just because of the case, because of the huge amount of compensation that russia must pay. the next thing is the so-called spy cases. it's a trend now. there are plenty of them. i know personally my good friend, a barrister, who deals with those cases. as i've already said, plenty of them. for example, man worked in some

secret service 10 years ago, and then he filed a resume to some foreign company, and he is by and he could be sentenced to 20 years to it's also problem, trained out in russia. next thing is expulsions of foreigners. for example, from a navy town i was in some cases the translator to some foreigners who were just forced to leave the country, at least three americans from mike native town were exposed country exposed if they were in detention center with illegal immigrants from tajikistan for several days. and you know the most obvious thing that we have plenty of,

these are types of visa, but the main types are business or travel, our vacancy holiday. and they entered a russia like a business visa, just to provide some lectures were something. but the court, russian court says no, business, if you, you know, you do some money, so you lied about your purpose of visit. they are first to leave a now they couldn't enter russia or, i don't know, five or 10 years. the next thing of course it's the station about ngos. the so-called law on foreign nation.

somite organization was amounts foreign agent last year, so it's like a yellow star. our official position, we shouldn't work like this. we are not foreign agent. we are independent organization. we are independent human rights lawyers. and after that we created two organizations. one organization like receive foreign money, yes, foreign grants, u.n. grants, maybe british grants, council of your grants, yes. but this organization didn't make any public statements, press releases, demonstrations and so. and the second organization didn't receive any money, but yes, we did press releases. we worked with mass media newspapers and so on.

and those both organizations are also declared as foreign agents. so okay, we say if you don't, we tried to play on your side by your rules. if you don't want it, we would be like independent lawyers with no open books, with no, we don't want to tell about our funding and so on. okay, so that's not a problem for us, for example. but the most important thing i'd like to say, final part of a speech, is the problem of torture. so i'm a member of the committee against torture, so it's my

topic, it's my issue. and you know, torture is everywhere. police brutality in the united states also, of course. in china, in europe also. but the problem is that how the state we ask on this. i mean, that is task of our organization, for example. so we are not trying to combat torture. become we try to combat torture but we know that lee's brutality -- police brutality is absolute. it's obvious. but we tried to persuade the instigators to manage, to instigate effectively those cases. and that's our task. and the most problematic region

in russia of course, if you're talking about torture is the chechen republic, of course. the militias, the policeman, for example, in our small organization we managed to have 110 convicted police officers for torture cases. but not in the chechen republic. because the instigators, federal instigators, work effectively. and they say, i had many conversations with those federal russian instigators that said i couldn't question simple chechen police officer because he will beat me, or maybe worse. that's all.

there are plenty of criminal cases, open criminal cases, but there are no convicted police officers. so i can speak about, for example, conditions of detention. as i've already said i can enter every prison of my region, but as you know him as you may know this strong economical crisis in russia and they cut everything that is possible. for example, i had many conversations with prison authorities. they say we do more -- we demolished every single dog in prisons. there are no dogs know. i mean just guard dogs because of the economic crisis. so it's terrible. i mean, just things got worse.

so i think those main topics that i just wanted to speak about. if you have any questions, please, thank you. >> thank you, anton. and we will start question answer session, and use my power of moderate, ask the first question to all of our speakers. and you can answer the question in the way you want. my question is, like, russia is a country with a long history. it's at least a thousand years of organized, formalized state. it has prosperous time come more persons time, less, worse economy, people kind of live better life, is light but it always was vertical of power. there was to any of the systems in russia after. it always was the system when

everything was decided by somebody on the top of the country, and very much policy was placed on what kind of person we have appetite. it always was in greater russia, soviet russia, always the same system of power, vertical power. extremely -- tell me if i'm wrong, i don't see how. i'm a historian. it always was to russia is a textbook propaganda. it always was country a propaganda. it always was country of human rights violations. so all these three statements are kind of what you guys trying to avoid are like kin kind of le yes, it historic heritage we got and we still carry on. so why do we have a hope this will be different? why? i mean, after the breakup of the soviet union we had streams

hundred and we had dreams. nothing has changed really. so we do we really have any arguments to believe that country can be changed so drastically? there would be no like imperial style of internal policy? it will be respect for freedom of media and human rights? and if we believe from that, so how long will it take and what should we do, particularly with united states or other countries? because every effort so far we've tried to put a better failed. thank you. >> the microphone is here. you know what, i've got at least three friends who are now in their 50s. what is in his 80s, and one is

in his 50s and another one is late '40s. they all used to be alcoholics. for most of their lives, most of their lives. no, no, no. one is american. i don't think it really matters. the one who is in his 80s now, by the way. and this guy, i mean, who is in his 80s, he quit drinking when he was 45. so he has lived for like 35 years at least ever since sober, absolutely clean. but when he was quitting drink everybody around them was saying like, look, you've been tricky all your life. you don't know any other examples. you hardly remember when you were sober. you probably, when you're a teenager, whatever. so there's no hope. there's no. the guy has been living 35 years clean, happy, family,

everything. so of course, i mean not every parallel works, but how i would answer, i mean, of course there's always hope. otherwise how do i, what's the use of living or gathering there, arguing, trying to figure out ways of thinking of scenarios for russia, describing all the problems if nothing can be done? i'm not a historian, but i would not completely agree with you, nikolai, as far as the history of russia is concerned. i mean, i mean if you take the entire history of russia, meaning not russian empire but russia as long as we remember what happened in russia, then it's at least 1200 years, and for the first five or 600 years

before probably the 14th century, no, i mean, russia did have democratic traditions. if you take the republican even if you take key of -- tee up russia, there were no product tradition. by today's standards, not only by the standards of that remote past. and history, at least as compared to other countries. that kiev rush was pretty much a democratic state. one hell of a lot more democratic got a lot of countries of europe at that time. yes, i mean for the past six, seven centuries russia has been an example of autocratic rule where the violation of human rights everywhere. but then again, well, you take europe, yeah, it's ahead of

russia -- ahead of russia three or four centuries, but what are three or four centuries all about look at the history of the world? the roman empire was there for thousands of years and then it had come it collapsed and had to change. so what i'm saying is we must. i mean, we meaning the citizens of russia who care, and the citizens of the world who care, americans who care because you did not really care in 1970, but the consequence of what happened in 1917 in russia, i mean, you are still, the worst conflicts including terrorism is in my opinion exactly, are exacted a consequence of what happened to the world, to first russia into the world in 1917, in the decades that followed. so definitely we've got to do everything we can to find a way out, to find a better solution for the russian crisis, for what

happens to russia, to change russia. >> it seems to me my id as the popular for russians. we always say that we are proud of living in the great country. i don't want to live in the great country. i want to live in the normal country. i think that if i'm not mistaken after 1945, the world coalition restricted abilities of germany to have army, some of the things. i think somewhere, someone time will come and russia will be forbidden to be the great country. maybe it will divide, but the only thing our so-called patriarchs decades can we live in a great country. we have sanctions come whatever, but we live in a great country.

i don't understand it. my idea is to stop the greatness of this country. and i think that i am bigger, better than they do it. >> well, i have a very submissive position on this issue so i shouldn't talk about it, sorry. [laughter] >> thank you. okay, go ahead. and tell it yourself, please. >> i met michael brody. i'm an environmental guy now at au, for me at the epa. and starting epa some 15 or six inches ago i started doing a lot of projects there. and after retiring i've done a little teaching. i've been all over russia backpacking, camping, all sorts of stuff. but i'd like to start by saying thanks to my compatriots, russian make a move to israel, thanks to putin, they are a lot safer. thanks to putin, the chemical

weapons are out of syria and weapons grade uranium or out of iran. so we need to have a little perspective. now, if you look at u.s. interventions over the last 25 years do you really want us to help you? do you see any evidence that that would change something that you guys care about? i mean, even look at bosnia and kosovo to be. they are slowly but surely the coming slowness states. we cleared out the serbs and the saudis have moved everything in. so what you think that we could do that would sort of help the general welfare in russia? thank you. >> okay, thank you. who wants to take this? >> well, you know what, in 1991 i asked, i spend three investments hitchhike around this country and it was a great experience. i remember speaking on c-span and i was asked the same

question. like, how would you like the u.s. to help the soviet union? because of still the soviet union. and my friend and i said help people, not the governments. back then the u.s. was subsidizing, giving credits to the russian government and party which of those credits were stolen. we believed that the best way the west could help the soviet union back then, and i still think it's the best way out of west could help, is helping developing an enterprise, helping in educating the people. i understand what natella is talking about when she speaking about the patriots position in russia. and yeah, i mean, i want my country to be happy. i want my people to be happy. and i think they come if they asked themselves really

seriously they will add they want to be happy, not great. in terms of size, empire and so one. but i'm definitely against the situation where the u.s. would invade russia, you know, or make some restrictions against russia, like russia should never have nuclear weapons or whatever weapons solely because, yeah, i don't believe this will work. i mean, there are some people in russia, i would not say many but there are some people in russia who hope for a popular revolt supported by the west are financed by the west, and say the west should do anything to get rid of russia putin. what i think the west should do everything to change russia, to help russia change, the initiate of should still be from the russian people. if the initiative goes from the

outside, russians will never forget that. this will always remain in their memory, historic memory and they will remember that we were changed from the outset. they will never forget that. there is a difference. i mean, there is a difference. i can, i understand the logic of natella but there is a difference between the nazi germany after the war and japan after the war and today's russia. i mean, we may regret that that there is such a difference, but there is such a difference. and sometimes yes, i believe that russia should receive a very hard lesson, a very hard lesson. >> how many times? >> from itself. not from -- from themselves, you know. probably the previous lessons were not enough.

i mean, having what we have right now, but i'm definitely against from any sort of intervention of the sort that you're talking about. the sanctions, you mean whether they are good or bad, whether useful or not? well, i think without those sanctions russia would've come to the economic crisis is going through right now anyway. solely because the system of governance is wrong, simply wrong. you can't rule the country by personality this way of saying, i become is the role of personnel at the it's the authoritarian rule that eventually brought russia to whatever wrong moves into foreign policy russia has made. first and foremost has brought

russia to the huge mistakes if not crimes and domestic policy and russian economy. so sanctions, not sanctions, russia would be there anyway. >> i cannot agree with first. i think that when we speak about the lesson, what could be more than the lesson of television? i remember it was first putin's elections. my father who was imprisoned in 1938, he went to work for putin. i shouted at him come what are you doing? these kgb colonel. is another kgb colonel. i cannot believe that that lesson would not be enough. why? spent i'll tell you what, world war, then yes. it will be beaten. it will be punished hard. and then after that we can talk

of, you know, the west and so on. this unfortunate hasn't happened and we don't want that to happen i'm sure. so i mean, what would you suggest in terms of practical steps? you would suggest the americans to do what? >> i don't think that americans should do something instead of those that you are quite right in that question, but i don't think that when you talk about sanctions, we both, three of us know the sanctions work not against the leaders. they work first term against us. because didn't you have problems with medicine in moscow? i have. there are several situations, children who died. they started dying after this law of the doctors.

so i think sanctions were not against the leaders. but my friend who was first russian ombudsman county always said very big fault of the west is the ability. so i don't want to stop this movement of realpolitik but maybe he's right. >> i would speak about practical stations, about your question, how could you help or maybe not help. since 2000, our organization received meaning many grants from nation's, usaid, macarthur foundation, national endowment for democracy your that was okay. nobody didn't care about it. but it all started after crimea

and ukraine situation, and so now we are called like -- [inaudible] i think if there are come if there is any liberalization, maybe just when our political leaders make a deal about ukraine, crimea and so on, and syria maybe, i think if there is any liberalization, maybe after that the station would be like previous years, just we could receive grants and we could work. we don't execute any orders from any foreign country. we work independently, so i think the crucial thing is to explain to people and to russian officials how the system works. i mean, we have some grant for,

we write a project by ourselves and we do everything that we want to do. we don't execute any orders. so i think that's the crucial thing here now russian government, of course, is not very tolerate to ngos who received money from abroad, of course. so i think that's the future issue that we could discuss later. thank you. >> well, it's a good question. i will do one thing because that question i ask in russia all the time, why should america become concerned in a situation in russia? why? the reason for you guys to be concerned about country come a 10,000 miles away. and if you're concerned, because of something in your national interests.

that's why. and if because of your interest, why should russia change? to satisfy your interest? your vision? this is like, like closed circle to this question i ask in russia many hundreds of times. why you guys try to change is? let's decide. article to fight you like in war? we have nukes, let's do control. what is your kind of interest? why you so much historic situation in russia? and, unfortunately, american government doesn't give a clear answer why. what do you want? what is your objection? what is your goal? to russian democratic country, okay? but why if russians, for instance, don't want it, let's say, let's say they don't want to american-style democracy. what's your business?

why china doesn't teach russia how to live? why, like india, three times bigger than the united states, doesn't give lessons to good and? what american president or department of state come there and give a lecture? i am on this site. i know it should be done that way but still, we have to answer, american official why, what's your interest in russia? what do we want to see? to follow like white house directions? and you're right, that's not always good. so that's a question really on our, not under speakers aside, on our side. well, let's give a question and then i will go back there. >> hello. i'm elaine, an associate director of wisconsin international ukraine university in kiev ukraine. and i really do appreciate this

panel and the perspectives put forth. nikolai, he made a really don't start off with a really great point about the history, and i would like to ask in context with that, yeah, what often thought of culture is the thickest form of binding of anything, and so whether you would call it history or maybe we should be calling it culture, which is to build up over hundreds of years, and thousands. and so maybe the culture has been described here end of the people have read about it, maybe the culture or the dynamics in russia are unique unto russia as his culture is unique to america or england or germany and so forth.

so whether we are looking at that, how would, within russia, the people of russia address the issues that are important to russia and russia as larger in the world to be able to succeed successfully for russia to be a part of the world community versus the current status, which is not necessarily in the interests of russia in its role in the community? i'm actually seeing natella and stanislav speaking almost on the same page but with a different take on how to accomplish that. and so what each of you approach, how could it be done within russia? it's not about the u.s. or germany of so forth to tell. how would the russian people come to make this so? thank you.

>> you know what, because i mean if we talk about culture, if we talk about the psychology, this can take really hours of discussing, so let me just say this. i was staying at my friends house in los angeles just a month ago, and he had problems with infestation of roof rats. really, it was a huge problem. you know, chasing them to the corner, trying caps did not prove a helpful tactic. because their bodies would rot in place and the older would just detract new generation of rich. so we finally figured out rather a way should be craftefor the

rats to come out, come down from the roof. he should try to make it impossible for the rats to get back, so he made this medal think i'm you know like a metal board around the wall of the house so the rat could come down but could never come up again. so my idea is that sooner or later this will happen. the russian elites will just have to gather, said at a roundtable maybe, invite representatives of the opposition. that it will not do this because they are so good. they will do it because self-interest, because the peopo it because they want comparable want to survive because they will not want to repeat the destiny of their predecessors, what i talked about earlier,

yeltsin era elites or soviet era elites and so. and they will have to work out a set of rules which would change russia into the country ruled by law rather than personality. this is where the u.s. i think should help, because this process will require things like guarantees from the west, from the western leaders, from american leaders. guarantees that the members of the russian elite will not, their families will not be prosecuted, you know, and stuff like that. i mean, it's a long process that will require negotiations and joint work of the best buys of intellectuals from both russia and the west. that speaking about technically how this transition could be made. but talking about culture, well yes, we do have this historic

tradition. and yes, but you know when it's like with any human being. and again speaking about this example of an alcoholic, it takes, i mean what needs to be done for him or her to stop thinking, right? one day they have defined themselves, you know, deep in mud on the edge of death, literally. and that's when the person has to face this choice, death or a new life. and this is where i agree with natella, yes, russia probably needs to find her in a situation like that. the fact that it has not yet chosen the way of democracy, you know, civic grades and stuff is probably because it doesn't get out itself in a situation like

that. but we don't want this to happen in the form of a popular revolt in russia or anything, because any revolt will lead to really unpredictable circumstances, including finding nukes enhance the group of people like this committee of january 25, for example, where it can explode anywhere. but i do believe that culture can be changed. everybody, we can change ourselves. every person can change him or herself without betraying him or herself. and educating people, talking to people, changing their minds by means of television, internet, lecturing, everything. as a journalist i can tell you for sure, i mean, give me or natella and we can make a dream team of russian journalist. and it would make it to the

russian nation television and spend like several months, i can tell you that culture will change. i mean, people will change. the way how propaganda has worked in the past 15 years, and we've seen how quickly it changed the minds of certain people. i can work the opposite way, too. i absolutely believe there is a chance and while i personally do my best to take advantage of that chance, because like i said, any other thing, the country falling apart, a civil war in russia, everything else that can happen, this will not make the world a better place. >> can i say something? follow up, just give me a second. it seems like you want to change just to dramatize it, you want to change it as you think is right for russia.

i think, they think this is what is right for russia, to the one way you see russia people a subject of manipulation like good people or by bad people. that i was talking but in the beginning. we have a more democratic leader like the job was, country was mormore democratic. witless democratic country, that country is less democratic. but basic teaching of the that's what you are talking -- >> that's what i say the major thing that needs to be done is change the country from rule -- no, no, no, that's not what i'm saying. from rule by personnel at from rule by law. us want to make a new set of rules, changing the country. that's the major point. >> i'm actually sure. >> remember, i think that 10

years ago we talked, discussed the problem of soviet union. now is the channel changed a lot, so i don't remember the question. i asked him what he answered. it is not enough blood for existence of russian democracy. >> absolutely. i was quoting yavlinsky, a famous russian politician and yes, it's true he said russia pays for democracy with only three lives, meaning that three young men who died on august 19, 1991. and yes, that's true. that's a fact speed hundred and -- that's a fact spirit it seems to me waiting when mr. putin will give us a tv channel it is something fantastical. i am also sure that informing,

informed people what's going on is also not enough because as i told over there, everyone can see on internet in information about action, about innovation in crimea, about anything. but people do not go to the street actions. ..

but they were for invasion to crimea. so far i think that these i respect the laws. they will do as ip phone who suffer from myth. i know it also is down this will come soon. >> just read commentary from my view. for info, the evidence comes to us and we say a person does i don't care. the person says i don't care.

so the person who faces police brutality, torture, some atrocities or another son who is abducted or disappear, they don't care and i think united state, germany, and russia. so it not the problem of culture. it is the issue of human dignity. so everybody could face police brutality, legal detentions. so i think the culture doesn't mean. thank you. >> hi, mitchell.

>> okay. mitchell coleman. i've been involved in russian relations in one form or another for many years and exchanges, during elections monitoring, media projects. first to comment on that question. quick comment, nikolai. they have lots of nuclear weapons pointed at us. that's all you have to say. as long as they are pointed at the united states, whoever is controlling the button, and it will be of concern to people here. it's really that simple. obviously we are going to take an interest. i want to go back to our conversation earlier i remember that time very well with lots

and lots of exchanges. there were lots of attempts to help russian russians on a people to people level. some with private funding, some a small grin, american funding. but as i said come and you know, now everything exploitation. it's gotten harder and harder for americans to help russians on the people to people level. it didn't start recently. they had a very sizable program and about 15 years ago the cries that it was a spying operation. as long as you have people in charge in russia you suspicion if not hostility, everything coming out of united state, we can only do so much. i would like to have that quite a few russians don't seem to realize in the 1993 to provide a lot of help to russians.

they commented to me in a talk where he learned for the first time that americans had paid the salaries of nuclear science in the early 90s. he had never heard that before. and he is a journalist. the economic catastrophe of the early 90s we may or may not have made a contribution, and that he was going to have been anyways with the collapse of the soviet system the matter what we did. i would say to your russian journalist such as yourself talk more about that rather than accept the line that all the help i got in the 90s was useless and so on and so worth. the free-market system, if that's what you want to call it, russia today when even existed there with him for technical experts from the u.s., from europe.

>> it decides many logic actually between the television set in the refrigerator. and the relative freedom of internet in russia because we know russia must number of internet users in the european country. the tv set with mainstream media when actually. how do you explain that people who have access to and are not and can get any kind of information still prefer the majority supports the boot in. thanks. >> victoria, u.s. can't let

russia. i was working in my office over 20 years and i was observing how our elections done in russia. when i read -- they want to migrate, come in september. they are only a warrior what about election commissions in the region. they don't know how to help and manipulate and get their orators out. [inaudible] >> i am not sure i am right, but the idea is they want to change rats for magicians.

i miss him very sensitive. they want to change some things that i'm not sure it's possible to do. by the way, i'm not american, but i wanted to answer your question. my opinion is crimea and by the other countries are very nervous about them. what will be next? >> love, and as far as why people in russia don't really use the internet. well, they do use the internet. they mostly watch videos, funny videos on youtube. they use social networks to post

their cat or whatever. it takes time. that's what i believe. at one point in they will kind of come together. there is a good thing about the economic catastrophe of russia. is that soon? more and more people will realize, will understand how their state works. exactly this so-called vertical power. that is the reason why their refrigerators are becoming empty. and they understand it the television also plays a great role in their refrigerators, eventually becoming empty.

so in more and more people realize that, when more and more people realize they have to think for themselves, they have to use their own brains, but is unable start reading more books, reading articles on the internet and not only posting cat and staff. this takes time. i just wanted to comment. 12, definitely, i personally know about a lot of your progress and exchange programs so wanted the one. yes, i keep telling -- i keep sharing all the information i have with the students when i lecture in moscow colleges. when i talk to people, talk to journalists. and when you say it hasn't dumped now, guess it has stopped and yes right now it's very difficult to launch exchange programs or educational programs. but then again, it doesn't mean

that we have to stop trying. i work in as a journalist, yes. i used to have national television at my disposal when i was in my 20s. i don't have that because the television channels with the best for 10 or 12 years. i raised my hand and just switch to travel in journalism, which i still crack this. we are all in the preset to do something. to think about we can do. i'm sure that's what i start with. both the russian people on one hand, and the russian elite has to think again about the fate of

russia. they eventually they have to change the rules by which includes things to those rules that we can reach and so on. for the sake of their own survival, they don't have to just think of the major change. this major change will have to happen. >> i would likely make a brief comment about the question of why guys need to interfere in our russian affairs. well, maybe it's very optimistic and, but i presume a balance.

it's what the world will do. the united nations -- i don't suppose if the ngos funded by foreign countries because it should be a balance. who stabs russia to open ngos combating police brutality in the united states? i always ask russian state officials as well, let's do in the united states. i was going to work there against police brutality. we have many, many cases in the united states than russian people, news about police brutality and united states. yes, yes, they have tortured. so it should be a balance. ngos should be independent in every country.

the united states sponsors the ngos in russia and russia sponsors ngos to the united states. that's okay because they should be independent on human rights issues in every country because when an ngo or in russia and is not an ngo because the organization is always okay. they're just shake, shake the hands of state prison officials and that's all holidays and so on. i think they should be a balance. maybe it's idealistic. >> thank you. we don't know what to do. so they got our list at least.

i think you have to think smarter. we have to get smarter now and find a way to the united states and russia to work together. let's think our speaker and thank you guys. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]