working hard, you will get ahead. this is a measure of class identity. it's also tied to think for the disinherited cannot only working hard but being tied to being routed to the land, having roots. class in the united states today is defined by where you live, the kind of home and neighborhood you grew up in. and the values that are associated with that since the place. the disinherited distrust groups that they see as rootless as i've written in my book this goes all the way back to a long-standing english hatred of vagrants. the mobile poor. but for the disinherited, ruthlessness applies to the top and the bottom. because they resent the actual poor whom they dismissed as either being lazy, failing to get a stable job, failing to

form families, failing to accept their subordinate station until they work hard to get ahead. and also see this social elites as rootless, too. because they are too cosmopolitan, too caught up in political correct ideology. and they also are very afraid of the social elite because they see them as removing boundaries that ensure social order. those boundaries are not just that wall and the idea of maintaining boundaries between countries in terms of trade, but boundaries between men and women, preserving traditional roles, boundaries between gay and straight, preserving traditional marriage. more importantly preserving the boundary between the lower classes in the middle class. because removing the class boundary which works on that system of working hard to get

ahead, threatens the disinherited who feel they will lose out and economic world that they believe operates according to a zero-sum game. what that means is that a zero-sum game implies that gains by one class take away the rights of gains among other class. i also believe the tribalism has been created by our media system. cable television news, talk radio, facebook, twitter, bloggers on the internet. we also know that this can create a whole universe of conspiracy feelings and feelings of victimization. it can create a sense of community but they can also i think facilitate alienation at the same time. because as it facilitates people's sense of being victims and being outsiders.

salon.com reported on some of these conspiracy theories which we know some like really fringe ideas. but they are not because birtherism is one of those ideas. looking at obama as being a muslim. even strange ideas where people talk about how obama is gay, michelle is truly a man and their children were kidnapped. so this kind of world events on the fringe we can say those people don't matter. we can't ignore them but what's striking about his article is that when he described the impulses for those ideas reflected i think the fears of the disinherited industry port. because basically what drove these people was their fear of a liberal, liberal foreign toxins

that are falsely perceived to exist within the circulatory system of the republic. they also tend to see trump asked the flamethrower. and from the ashes, what will return is the rise of white dominance and a more civilized society. and i think that idea, trump as a flamethrower is important because it reflects one of the points of the report that it's what people responded and said we need a president who will completely change the country. i found that really, really stark and disturbing. they didn't even explain what change they really wanted to any kind of change is somehow positive or good. and i think that kind of desire to sort of tear things down without thinking of the consequences is also social commentators and political commentators have talked about the authoritarianism, the crypto

fascism but i think it's that desperation which sort of assumes that we can take it as i said back to earlier traditions of trying to restore the order to its perfect original form. and that i think it's also very prevalent in disinherited for cancer. for trump's supporters, 2008 had a double meaning. the recession and decline of the middle class and illegitimate rise and coronation of barack obama. the disinherited want to restore order to america, a class racial and gender order that ensures the true center of america, the white rural moral small town hard-working, hard of america. and they believe that if they do so, if they can restore this order, that what will come with the is a renewed sense of the center's claim to political authority, that center's claim

to prioritizing their values. and also that distrustful and threatened group that feels that this is necessary to accomplish in order for them to hold on to their piece of the american dream. thank you. >> first of all it's a pleasure to be here, james davison hunter want to thank for inviting me deserves credit for really providing a tool to understand

the way politics has changed over the past generation. his book culture wars is really a foundational book in a sense. and i'm very pleased to be on the stage with him. i found this really was a very useful in this division that it makes between credentialed and non-credentialed, and the social elite versus the disinherited a very good way to look at the way politics are now dividing. nancy preserve a very good argument. i have a different take. i think one way to look at the trump phenomena at the trump electorate is less to demonize them, then to recognize that the actual have a realistic outlook

on their position in society. if you look at, think in terms of relative status rather than absolute status where you are moving up in the pecking order or are you moving down. one of the central characteristics of the trump voter is that they see themselves economically, socially and culturally moving down the ladder. it is critical, and this is in the relative status particularly, you see this with a men versus women. the idea that women are on the ascendancy. men are being -- i'm not saying this is true, but a lot of men since themselves as being pushed aside, that the feminist revolution basically has left them behind. what's interesting is you see

this with blacks and hispanics being quite optimistic because, especially politically they are on the ascendancy, and they are in a winning coalition. whereas the white working-class views itself to be onto the ascendancy. that's clear on the economic front where the fall, the lack of manufacturing jobs, they are realistically on the short end of the stick. political representation is also very important. it's one of the striking things right after the great recession in 2008-2009 was that black americans who took the worst hit, they lost more wealth, moral value more income than any other group remained more optimistic than whites, much more optimistic because in part

to have political representation in the white house and did not feel abandoned, where as whites who took a hit, no question, but they felt much less represented. on the cultural front the survey shows that evangelicals and conservative catholics are among those who feel are clearly left out. they are left out. if you look at our culture now, tv, movies, the values that are expressed in the culture are clearly antithetical to those of evangelicals and conservative catholics. there has been -- as far back as 1998, paul wyrick who was the leader of the christian right back then said, this was right after the senate voted not to

impeach bill clinton, paul wyrick declared, and i think he was dead on, that there is no moral majority in america. and that's true. there is no longer in america what the people who support the values of the moral majority would say they are now clearly in the minority. it's clear if you look at the trends on how gay marriage has become a positive feature in a matter of, a just eight years from 2004-2012, gay marriage went from being a winner for george w. bush as an opponent to winner to barack obama as a proponent. society has slipped, and inflicting on these issues it has slipped against the values

of conservative christians and conservative catholics in general. another phenomena that is taking place that is harder to measure is that those who experience scarcity, which means declining economic value in your life, declining cultural sense of majority, robert putnam did a very interesting study of diversity. people living in more diverse communities tend to what he called hunkered down. this was a factor disturbing because he is a believer in the idea that the more you get to know your neighbor and david weber is a the first collection of people, the more he would become accepting of them. he found, much to his distress, that the opposite was the case. that the more you of diversity,

the more people pull him. they stay in their house and civic values or civic participation declines. when you have economic scarcity, people did not turn to the left. rahm emanuel famously said when barack obama took office, he was in chief of staff, he said we can't let a great recession go by without taking advantage of it. in fact there was nothing to take advantage of because people turned to the right in this circumstance. it was not a situation where the liberal instinct grew. instead the conservative instinct grew and you saw shortly after that the rights of the tea party and the republican sweep of the house and senate, crashing down on liberalism. growth, conversely, is the

circumstance that liberals need. windows growth and you feel things are expanding, you are much more prepared to be generous, and when did you are more willing to say i'm doing well, i can afford to help out people who need help. people on the left and right become more generous. when you were in a scarce world, and that's what many of these white working-class voters feel themselves to be, a declining, narrowing world where the opportunities are being reduced, you are inclined, and it's not irrational, to see the world in terms of a zero-sum game. things are getting smaller and smaller. your income, your job opportunities. so that an immigrant who is

coming in is just adding to the competition for lesser goods. there's also the temptation to be pulled towards authoritarian impulses to have someone come in and step in and authoritatively declared you have rights and i'm going to protect them. what's interesting is that, and i think this is really the most significant thing that comes out of this whole survey is that whites are splitting into two categories. that downscaled whites, non-credentialed whites, and the credentialed or social elite whites. this represents what i think is the ultimate tipping point in this election, which is that

liberalism is really no longer the ideology of the underdog. it's actually the ideology of the democratic party with it of the over dog. in the white community, not in the minority community, but among whites it's the people, the whites who are most liberal and most democratic are the best educated, the people who were doing well in the current economy, the people who are the lawyers, doctors, academics, and journalists for that matter, who have a life where they see a positive good future. conservatism, conversely, has become really for the first time under trunk and how long that will last we will see, but it's

become the ideology of the underdog. this is very different from what the conservatism of the republican party from 2012 and before. i don't know how sustained this is going to be but this election has produced at least momentarily flipping of the two parties. the democratic party for generations, certainly in my youth and while before that, through the whole great depression, well into the '70s, people always thought of the democratic party as the party of the working man and woman, jill and joe sixpack. of the republican party is the party of wall street and elites. and professionals. that's just a longer true. and trump may signal a flipping

of that in a way that's going to be very interesting to watch post this election, and how the republican party come to terms with that i think is one of the most, it's going to be from a political reporter's point of view, it is the story to be watching. let me in on that. we have a few minutes for questions i guess. >> thank you. we do have a few minutes for questions, so please ask away. yesterday please would you identify yourself please? >> i'[inaudible] >> -- change them walking the streets of d.c. where people were doing petition. piece about change. that's all you knew about him was change.

so why is it wrong for trump is about change speak with one of the things i've written about is highlighting that trump when he says make america great again is turning the clock back to it's about returning to the 1950s, returning to. of time where america was more of an intellectual nation, where working people were more likely, particularly working white men were more likely to be able to support their families. and if you compare it to bernie sanders, remember, he's calling for class revolution and that's also a rather dramatic change to be donated. i think with barack obama part of what was going on there was to point out that from the old republican party who want to see themselves as more conservative, that change was somewhat dangerous. i really think the evangelical more conservative neocon wing of

the republican party has been silenced to a large degree with the rise of trump. but i think the problem is that change can become any candidate can claim change. but i think barack obama's vision was one moving for the future, moving more in the direction of expanding opportunity and equality. where tom's change is not. it's about restoring a group of disinherited people back to their rightful place. so i think you're exactly right to point out hypocrisy but i think this is, this is a nuance of what people here when they said which direction do we want to go when we talk about change. >> there's a question over here, please. >> frank lockwood with the arkansas democrat gazette. i think anything evangelical leaders looking at places like christianity today, and there

are a lot of them that are out there very much anti-donald trump, but the polling suggests that the people that are in the pews are overwhelmingly for mr. trump. how do you explain this disconnect between the two of them? >> who would like to feel that? >> i think that a lot of leadership, particularly christiana today, ties to evangelicals. are basically moderates and they are basic also well educated, and if they were not quite so religiously based, they would probably be democrats. whereas the evangelical population feels much more under siege by the existing, by the culture that we live in.

and see themselves much more as isolated and under assault, whereas christianity today and other, the head of -- what's the -- ethics and public policy center. these are, they are more intellectuals, and the more intellectual you are, the less you're going to align yourself with trump. but if you are feeling from the gut, which i think what a lot of evangelicals responded to poles or, if you an appeal to the guy. >> that i had one quick point? i just want to say, i mean, i think from the very beginning of trump's rise, he threatened the evangelical wing of the republican party. he knows nothing about the bible. the only thing bobby jindal ever said that i thought was right on

point, he said that he's never read the bible because he's not in it. [laughter] he threatened the family values when that's closely allied with evangelicals. the fact that his past and all the current revelations about his sexual behavior also undermines this. what i find so amazing is that the evangelical wing that was so powerful and that is placed in the republican party has been pushed to the side. i think there is a division in terms of how the voters, the voters who want to support trump, they may as the study shows identify themselves as the religious but that's not the attraction that's driving them to support trump. >> i'd like to piggyback on what -- >> go ahead. >> it was interesting in the survey we are trying to model,

develop the models to predict support for trump versus support for clinton, education came out as a primary factor. but as a secondary factor, it was not whether or not someone was religious or religiosity. it was whether they defined themselves as religiously conservative that place them in the disinherited and made them more likely to support donald trump. among people who call themselves religious moderates, we actually were not quite sure what to do with them for a while but we had another question asking people whether they consider themselves or again or evangelical. and again in modeling the data it seems that with moderates if you took those who called themselves evangelical or born-again, they belonged with, among the disinherited, with religious conservatives.

but moderates who might be very religious in terms of prayer and other kinds measures of religiosity in the study who didn't say they were born-again or evangelical went with another group in terms of their support. >> i think we have time for one more question. we could go over the hour, but yes. jody, you will have time for two. >> richard miles. one number that puzzles me is the president's overall approval rating. that doesn't seem really to fit in with your data. if seven out of 10 or eight out of 10 people are really that the system, their disposal, cynical, alienated, how is it that the president has approval numbers now in the mid '50s? where you would expect it to be much, much lower especially given the fact that his signature program is running

into a lot of problems and it seems to be emblematic of what people are that about. i have no idea on how we get there. i thought you might have some insights. >> i will respond to the. i can't explain it, but we do find the same pattern in our survey. we have a favorability measure of obama. he comes up as much more favorable than either hillary clinton or donald trump do. you know, because we were focused upon things that tie in with our historical study but also for this particular election year, we haven't got into that, but it's a very good question. we should spend more time with it. >> fourteen. jody. right here, nikki. >> -- [inaudible] of the report. probably less of the study but i

was so disappointed looking at it that didn't have more united states. effect it has not in the report. you did show one in one of the slides and it did come as any pollster will tell you, the trend is more important than the absolute value because you never know, people tend to tell a pollster what they think he or she wants to hear. because the emphasis both in the title and in much of the presentation is on banishing, on dynamics and so on, i think it would strengthen the report. and while dial-up probably doesn't have exactly -- gallup -- does have discretion over time, just adding some background trend data, what i think strengthen the argument and, of course, look at the very long-term but we don't have

polling data, we've got to other periods where we have had more. looking at recent trends i think would strengthen the report. >> there is a section early on in the report that looks at some of the historical data and continuities. but it's not in chart form. >> even in footnotes. >> right. but thank you. we can do more with that, i agree. >> well, thank you very much. first of all to our panelists from near and far, and my colleagues from the institute, and to all of you who have come here today. it was i think a very interesting commentary on where we are right now and what might be in our new future. what might be coming along. thank you very much. [applause]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> less than four weeks to election day at the tampa bay times reports that u.s. district judge mark walker ordered the extension of florida's voter registration by one week until next tuesday. because of hurricane matthew. now ride is pressure that a voice in our elections.

the times reports the for democratic party have asked for an extension of the deadline in the wake of the disarray left behind by hurricane matthew which led to the evacuation orders of more than 1 million residents. we are on that tampa bay.com. here's a look at some of the latest ads in the presidential race. >> next president faces daunting challenges in the dangerous world. iran promoting terrorism. north korea threatening. ices on the rise. libbey and north africa in chaos. hillary clinton yield every single time as secretary of state. now she wants to be president. hillary clinton doesn't have the fortitude, strength or stamina to lead in our world. she failed a second state. don't let her fail us again. >> i'm donald trump and i approve this message. >> kissing women without consent. >> i didn't say that at all. but i don't think you understood what was said. i'm automatically attracted to beautiful women. like a magnet.

spin this was locker room talk. >> grabbing their genitals. >> locker room talk. >> you can do anything. >> i didn't say that at all. i don't think you understood what was said. this was locker room talk. >> our campaign 2016 coverage continues on c-span with life debates for u.s. house, senate and governor's races.

>> bob litt co-lead continues to do with the aftermath of hurricane matthew, the charlotte observer with this picture and article the death toll has risen yet again in the ninth day of recovery to 19, most of them drownings that occurred when people were trapped in vehicles and swept away. that toll could rise even more in the coming days as rivers and five more counties are expected to surpass record levels between today and saturday. as of this morning 143,000 sites in the state are without power and 3800 people are housed in 43 shelters, some of which do not have electricity. multiple sections of interstate

95 are also shut down. that's from the charlotte observer. walter jones of north collect weeding out disinformation and picture noting the red cross is seeking volunteers saying as we continue to work together following hurricane matthew, here is a list of local charities where you can help. >> watch c-span's liv live covee of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on wednesday october 19. live debate preview from university of nevada las vegas starts at 7:30 p.m. eastern. the briefing for the debate studio audience is at 8:30 p.m. eastern at the 90 minute debate is at 9 p.m. eastern. stay with us following the debate for your reaction including calls, tweets and facebook postings. listen to live coverage of the debate on your phone with a free c-span ready app, download it from the app store or at google

play. >> now russian ambassador to the u.s. sergey kislyak on tension with the u.s. over issues like the war in syria and the ukraine-russia conflict in crimea. he spoke yesterday at the johns hopkins university school of advanced international studies in washington. >> good afternoon. i'm vali nasr, the dean of johns hopkins university school of advanced international studies, and it's my privilege to welcome everyone to a discussion of the current and future state of relations between the united states and russia which is a part of our series on foreign policy and global security. we are honored today to host as our guest speaker ambassador sergey kislyak who currently serves as the ambassador of the russian federation to the united states.

we look forward to hearing his perspectives on a vast array of international issues facing the two countries. and given his deep engagement in diplomacy for nearly two decades, i can think of no one better than him to represent and discuss the pressing global issues facing the two countries today. ambassador kislyak previously served as the deputy minister of foreign affairs from 2003-2008. and pride to that he served simultaneously as the russian federation ambassador to belgium, and the permanent representative of russia and nato. he graduated from moscow engineering physics institute as well as from the ussr academy of foreign trade. i would also like to think senior fellow at foreign policy institute and the moderator of our foreign policy and global

security forum, ambassador shirin tahir-kheli who will conduct the conversation with ambassador kislyak and also moderate today's event. so without further ado allowed me to invite both ambassador kislyak and ambassador shirin tahir-kheli to the podium. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. and thank you for joining our students and faculty, the dean and others interested in the very important subject, russia. i also want to thank the rather large audience that is here

today, which i think signals the interest in this important subject. before we begin, the standard request please. turn off cell phones. it doesn't disturb the event so we would be grateful if you could silence your cell phones. i don't know that i need this idea but perhaps even to you. or especially to you. we don't want moscow calling and saying that's not what we meant. [laughter] >> but i can get advice or moscow. >> this is true. anyway, i was wondering if you wanted to make a few remarks at the outset on this complicated relationship? i served three presidents of the national security council, and actually was -- i remember going to the welcome ceremony for

president gorbachev and he came in 87, in december. because that was seen as the transformation of relationship into something substantially different and lastingly different. and since then i've been in two different administrations up in new york at the u.n., and each one comes in expecting that things will be better. and in some ways they are i think, but i'd like your perspective as a crucial about this. so however you want to address that, and then we can get into other issues. >> thank you, ambassador first and foremost i'd like to thank sais for inviting me. is a wonderful opportunity to explain what russia is and what russia is not, which is also very important, especially nowadays. secondly, i was thinking how to start a discussion because i know american tradition to start

with a joke. [laughter] i was trying to find a joke about russian american relations and i found that i lost my sense of humor. [laughter] >> it's very unfortunate. i will have a chance to dwell upon it, and the things are developing not in the best fashion, both for russia and most important for the united states in russian-american relations. it's also deplorable because we can do a lot of things together and we missed a lot of opportunities because we do not do so. i would also like to say that we are watching very carefully the election campaign in this country. yes, we do. and now i'm not going to comment on this. -- now, i'm not going to comment on this. we do not interfere into

internal affairs of the united states, neither by my statements nor by electronic or other means. that's important for people to understand and hear from what, horse mouth. we now are leading to repair in russian-american relations which is very different from what was in 87. and i remember also the visit by mr. cobra chopper i was working at the embassy doing account control. i remember this i ask the patient as to what we can do together in order to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, later when the soviet union ceased to exist there were a lot of expectations as to what we can do together because the world has changed. and it is no cold war but i would submit that there is now cold war even today. because there is no basis for a cold war.

there is no ideological divide between us. but the relations developed unfortunate in a way that we predict say five to 10 days ago, have always felt that it was moving in the wrong direction. if you want me to characterize where we are today, i will try to summarize very succinct fashion. all the normal channels of operation between the states are frozen. -- cooperation. we had a commission that included 21 working groups on a number of issues that were supposed to help to build american-russian relations. and it covered almost everything from science technology, space, nuclear proliferation, military

to military. you name it, we had. it's gone and it's not our decision to it was decision of the united states to freeze it. we see the united states taking unfriendly, and i'm trying to be polite, unfairly steps towards russia, including sanctions. we have heard and there are ways of attempts to exert pressure on russia to achieve the goals that are not ours. and there are calls for isolating russia, both probably still remember it, there are even recent calls to do so. isolate russia, isolate russia. it doesn't work with russia and it's not going to work. we are very much disappointed that instead of trying to build and capitalize on what both russia and the united states can

help together to solve the issues that do exist in the region and regional conflicts, we are locked into that kind of unfriendly discussions. and i think we are missing a lot of opportunities. i would like to underline that we feel that it's not us who started it. it's not as who are feeling it. but the result is where we are. it started even before the current disagreements on syria or disagreements on ukraine two years ago. you might remember -- kind of offense to russia and russians. then there were snowed in affairs that we didn't solicit

but it came on us. just by instance of events happening without our participation. and afterwards when mr. snowden got stuck in russian airport and we didn't have any legal or moral reasons to give him to the government of the united states, even for very simple reason that we do not have an agreement for mutual extradition because the united states refused to have one with us. then we saw another provision of relations, and you might remember the president of the united states chose to cancel the summit with russian president. then we have had a number of other things that led to the situation in ukraine where we

saw forceful overthrow of illegitimate government supported finally by the united states, and we didn't support it and we couldn't. we had huge disagreements. and instead of working together on site helping the ukrainians to build a government of national unity that was in the agreement, between the opposition and mr. jacob which, we saw pressure pressure pressure on russia to accept position that we couldn't accept. we have, start significant history was on crimea over the willingness of the people to choose their destiny, those who live there. and we are still locked in sections against russia as an instrument of pressure. i would like to say from the

outset that the pressure on russia doesn't work, including economic front. if i'm properly asked the obvious i would will about the economics. but it's important to understand how things were developing and are developing. and having said that i'm not going to comment on the u.s. elections. maybe i would make one small exception. we are very disappointed about the writer about russian that is embedded in these discussions and the russian-american relations seems to become another collateral damage of the internal political debates in the united states. all of this doesn't go well for fast improvement of relations. however, we are keeping all the doors open. we are willing to work and interesting work with united states on issues that unite us.

and i would send there are many more than those that take us apart. and i still feel like it happened in the past, we would be able to restore a little bit of normalcy that would lead to serious cooperation in the future. and i certainly would like to hope that that is going to be irreversible. >> thank you for those opening remarks. i want to pick up on a couple of things that you just mentioned. you said that russia has tried very hard to work with the united states on a number of issues moving forward. but how then given if that is the case and given how hard secretary state john kerry worked on the syria deal, that

kind of collapse which has not only just issues to do with war and peace but humanitarian disaster, is there any chance for russian engagement in a productive resolution at least of the hostilities so that things can begin to improve? they have come far, and some of those issues involve hard choices for all sides including russia. the assad regime just to mention one. perhaps what happens to the territorial integrity of the state as it currently exists, repercussions for neighbors, iraq, et cetera. so this would've been i would have thought one way or recent months led to some hope that

collaboration on this front would spill over into better relations with russia on other issues. and, of course, i mean, there are other things besides the election were of course that american audiences have. i suspect our student audience and others might bring it up in the qa day period. but also -- q&a -- the fact that putin has said that russia was not jettison the plutonium for 34 times, the agreement with the united states to decommission this. so those are not particularly, so that is really sort of russian choices. and so you were saying we are ready on all fronts, but on these issues how do you see it specifically? where can russia go that will find a common premise for us to work together on?

>> ambassador, how many hours do you give me to enter that? [laughter] let's start one place. >> thank you. >> syria. we have been working with the united states from day one when we entered syria. suggesting that we have a common enemy, and that is terrorism. it's not an abstract for us. you leave behind oceans. we know that any spillover from this region is not written into all the security. and we now also among other things, to our estimated 4000, maybe more, i don't know the exact numbers come of the so-called russian speakers of fighting on the side of al-qaeda in this particular

area. those people will return to russia them to russian speaking countries next to russia, and we do not have protected borders with our neighbors. it's a real concern. secondly, we also understand that the government of syria needs to be able to continue to preserve dates because if it is -- not only for syria but for the rest of us are going to be increasingly, increasingly more difficult, dangerous. because then if that kind of country will become a totally failed state, that would be -- extending from the region as well.

we know, we have seen it and we have seen it in our territory how that kind of people who are spending their lives to build the holy caliphates what they do, what they plan and how they end. we have tested it in russia. so for us it was very important in that we can first on the invitation of the government of syria to help to fight terrorists. nothing more, nothing less. by the way, one has to remember that we are there on a fully legal basis of, unlike some others who fly, send troops there on the ground without asking permission up a legitimate government. but returning to the crisis in

syria, we certainly understand, and he we agree with the united states and most probably even the latest disagreement didn't change it, that there is no solutions, stable solution for syria that can be achieved through the use of force only. what is important is to have a political solution. a medical solution that will bring all the syrians together. sometimes when i speak to my american colleagues, everybody speaks in a way that is assad against civilians. it's not. there are more than 50% of people, if not more, who feel that it's their country, if there president, dutifully elected. and they do not want an alternative that is cutting heads off from those who believe in different sectors of religion.

and we need to understand that there are two goals. first, eliminate the source of terrorists. and here we agree in principle with the united states. we even agree that in the united nations by approving a number of security council resolutions that call for comment even not unlike any safe haven for isil or al-qaeda. and second time, thing, is to help the syrians to start negotiating because neither you nor us can tell the syrian people how they want to live in the future and who is going to be their leader. so there are two processes that we've been trying to harmonize with the united states. to some degree we felt that we were almost there.

on october 9, september 9 when we came to an agreement with the united states on the formula of the very recent cessation of violence for weeks for establishing the regime for the road, a road that is going from eastern part of the aleppo north to turkey, to provide the humanitarian supply. we have agreed that the syrian government on one side and all the opposite, armed opposition need to leave the zone, leaving it free from the presence. also establishing checkpoints. one check by the government to be sure that the candidates of humanitarian assistance that

come to aleppo do not carry weapons. and one checkpoint by the opposition to be sure that it is not, that is to agree to the. so what we saw afterwards, there was an attempt, and i'm talking only about recent episode but it's very telling as to where we are. what happened during this period of seven days, the opposition attacked government of syrian forces 350 times, within one week. wins syrian government, i think it was on the 12 or 14 of september started pulling back their forces from the road in order to allow the humanitarian convoys, the opposition not only fired into backs, they tried to take over the territory. ..

on september people consider them kids in the eastern part of the city that is controlled by al qaeda and opposition forces. sometimes they act against the government.

[inaudible] the al qaeda that is acting this territory, there are several thousands of those, is keeping them in an iron fist 26 people who wanted to leave were sent by al qaeda last week. we need to understand what is happening in aleppo. it's not something that is portrayed here in a simplified session that they were attacked

by russian forces. we never attack civilians. sometimes we have done a lot where's the opposition that is not al qaeda. we never got any specific response on this issue, specifically that would help deal with the issue. what we are after is not peaceful syria. it's huge distortion that we see in reporting. we go after al qaeda and i have always felt that in your country, which has always trouble remembering what al qaeda did in this country.

after seven days of continued violations of the arrangement, they decided enough is enough with a thought. as a result of pressure on the opposition and the americans promised us they would make sure what they call opposition will leave al qaeda and be separated from al qaeda and it is something that has been promised since february or march and has never been done. this problem now is so distorted that unless you focus on what is right you wouldn't be able to define what it is that you call constructive operations.

there is a different story that doesn't necessarily connected with syrian. >> i actually wanted to add there that one of the things the statement that you said is that it was her result of an frankly actions by the u.s. periods for precisely which actions by the u.s.? >> first i have to explain what is disagreement about. russia and the united states have used a lot of the tony of her weapon person possesses during the cold war some 12 years ago, maybe more, we started negotiating an agreement to declare the plutonium we have produced for warfare purposes would be used for these purposes

and would be eliminated. there were a number of discussions between us, scientists, diplomats, myself and my previous capacity and we would discuss that it's reversible, you need to burn it up in nuclear reactors. we have looked at nuclear reactors and they are not optimized for that kind of function. we told them we will build a reactor that will be very well designed in order to make efficient, the process of elimination. we have to build a facility to create a field, something the

u.s. government was insisting you do 12 or more years ago. we didn't want to do it at that time because we didn't feel it was reasonable and it was enormously expensive. we were, at that that time, promised a lot of financial help from professional countries and the help never came. what happened? today, the u.s. government has been building their own fuel facility and in the middle of the process, you haven't completed it, you are are somewhere in the middle, you seem to have decided to another direction, one that the united states was insisting we didn't use because it was reversible. we have completed the fuel

plant. it's operational. it is supposed to burn this plutonium just to learn that the united states reconsidered. this was created in different circumstances. it was part of steps that we were taking in order to reduce nuclear materials. there were a number of circumstances that made it possible at the time. first and foremost, you didn't do what you promise to us. secondly, the circumstances have

changed and the treaty has crucially changed. the circumstances did change. we see a very hostile pressure on russia's economic side, we see them moving toward our neighbor and ballistic missile defense being deployed and it certainly goes to change the long run of the nuclear stability. we see the so-called global. [inaudible] that would allow the u.s. to act anytime militarily. all of this has changed significantly in this strategic reality for us. we had to reconsider our

participation in the form of an agreement. having said so, i would like to underline that having the treaty , we are not planning to use this plutonium for any military purposes. >> i have to go back to finish off something that i was going to ask. there is a lot of opposition to the government and we can talk if it's 50% or 80% or whatever. even without the isis. how do you see this ending? how do you see some kind of normalcy which is perhaps an optimistic word at this moment,

but how do you see it even in the context of a non- collaborative u.s. russian effort. where does it go? >> first we haven't shut the door. [inaudible] the agreement is still there, we are willing to work with the united states. [inaudible] first of all, secondly, i think during the summer months of tough negotiations in multilateral, we have discussed

almost any possible avenues to pursue. the forces that i obtained from the ground, plus those countries that are very much involved including supporting the army and financing the government, so the political will is to think that there are ready so many issues that i can help, as far as i'm concerned. i want to stop the fighting, make the delineation with our opposition to be held and trained and sometimes armed by

the united states and iso- because i think it's a common understanding that al qaeda is a threat that needs to be dealt with. security council resolution specifically .2 al qaeda in syria and they will be the organization that needs to be exterminated and for the rest, we need to start building an environment to start negotiating. we have trust. initially toward the process of seeking a peaceful negotiation,

we invited the opposition to moscow several times and the goal was not to make them negotiate. the goal was to help them learn they can talk to each other. think syria. that is their country for their kids and grandkids. we are working toward a moment of better understanding that negotiations are possible. we have a couple attempts to start negotiation, but currently we see a group of the opposition that is adamantly insisting participation in negotiation

that has been blocking for a month and a half any sort of negotiations. i think we need to continue. we can achieve negotiations. it's going to be painful with bumps on the road. >> russia will remain in syria with a rather large presence. >> it's not that large but we are in agreement with the government that we are there as long as the situation is enforced. >> i have some interesting questions that some of the others will be asking so i would like to thank the gentlemen. one of them is on the arms-control forces side. is there any expectation that russia will concede where is the

ask tension expected to last. what would it take for russia, what actions by u.s. and nato. [inaudible] >> it's a good question. the only problem is i think so much is hard to explain what we have suspended. i tried to be brief. we had an agreement on russian forces in europe. the agreement had been negotiated during the cold war. it has created quarters that was designed to prevent the

offensive operation of either side unexpected. [inaudible] what was happening, as you remember when germany was reuniting and the soviet union ceased to exist, we promise they wouldn't be expending, but what happened in reality is something different. they started pocketing the orders of the countries.

[inaudible] as a result toward us, we are only increasing. we have raised this issue in vienna and we convinced our european friends to negotiate willis called amendment to the treaty. the initial agreement plus amendments have constituted the treaty. what happened. after we have some kind the amendments.

[inaudible] they refused to rectify the treaty. literally speaking, what we have left today is that old treaty that was supposed to regulate relations with nato, however the situation on the ground is different. currently nato forces. [inaudible] do you expect us to return to that country? >> of course not. what does it take for us to return? i do not expect the united

states to be willing and interested in creating such a condition. that's one of the problems, give me a few minutes, with your permission. thank you investor. >> sure. >> with your permission, what was happening after the end of the cold war, there was a new space in europe and terms of security and landscape. there were a number of countries of nato, 15 of them, russia, former members of the warsaw pact and we all wanted to decide how to build a secure environment that was called all-inclusive and bringing everybody together, and we did believe that it was sincere and

possible. would it present a proposal on comprehensive security landscape that would be favoring all the countries of the continent, including russia, and what happened, our western friends who american colleagues included , even didn't allow to start serious negotiations on this issue. we did propose several versions of it. i do not claim that it was kind of ultimate truth in our papers. it was subtle ideas that we invited our russian partners to sit together and develop together, in order to create a security system that favored security of everybody, but it never happened.

during this 25 years, what we saw happening, nato became 18, 21, currently it's 28. nato has been moving the infrastructure forces closer to our border and it can hardly be called the kind of security system that favors security for everybody. what happened during this 25 years, nato tried and to some extent succeeded, in taking out by itself, the security space in a bigger part of europe. but nato is an alliance for the members of the alliance and not for the others. that creates new dividing lines that are pushed to our borders

and it's something that is a very, very serious problem in our relations and most probably one that will have a very, very long consequences. >> thank you. i'm going to ask you kind of a general question and then a specific and then open it up for the audience in a minute. >> based on all the things that you've seen them participated on in the state things today, do you think america and russia are national allies or adversaries and what are some of the overlaps for commonalities and where do you see the major divide? we don't have to go decades into the future but say next to the

life of whichever candidate wins , the next four years, let's say. >> let's start with our longer history we are close neighbors. sometimes people forget russia is the closest neighbor of the united states except for canada and mexico. it's only 4 kilometers between us. we have a history where we were helping you sometimes by military presence during great times. we established a fort in california, and i love to go there because not only it's phenomenally beautiful place,

but what amazes me most, there's a russian for and camp and rifles and the curators tell me during the whole history of russian presence there, not a single cannon, not a single rifle was used for hostile factions. they were used only to. [inaudible] for me it's very symbolic russians and americans, they are not only very similar, we have many, many interests that are common. on some issues we have been able to work even in the worst times of the cold war. let's take nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. we did so much together, and if it weren't for us, probably we

wouldn't have today the treaty extended for eternity. if it weren't for us, there wouldn't be a number of arrangements that reduces the sensitive nuclear materials. we cooperated on space. you might remember an area with russians and americans, they risked their lives together, relied on each other to survive, they do scientific missions together and in a critical environment, and when when your shuttle program went down, your astronauts are reliably flying on the russian rocket boosters. i've spoken to rashard and american cosmonauts so many times that it's mind-boggling to speak with them compared to us

because they have a different psychology. they work together and they believe in one thing together. so can we work together, my answer is yes. can we expel the areas where we can work together, yes, arctic being one of the areas for future generations that might be very useful and many others. we have been able to work together in very tense moments in recent months, just trying to remember the issue of chemical weapons in syria when the government was considering to get involved.

we posed a solution that was different and it works. both countries worked together to get chemical weapons from syria at a time of war in a very tense situation. i know what it took to remove chemical weapons and we did it together there were moments where your cargo ship was carrying stuff and russian and chinese also. it's amazing what can be done and we must want and can port

together. we bump into problems that shouldn't be coming our way, but they do. but what they do and the current state of affairs between us is certainly very unfortunate in this respect. >> i was going to raise china and say how do you see u.s. russian relations differing depending on which candidate, hillary clinton or donald trump, wins the president election. thank you. am going to open it up to the audience. i would request to have the

first before we are done in passage to others. kindly keep the question brief and identify yourself. wait for the microphone please. >> john hopkins university. my specialty is from ukraine and this question hit high notes close to home. the question i hope you is what is the russian federation cry doing to protect those in crimea during this situation one has to

be serious. they had to leave the country that was stolen from them by the armed crew and just try to remember, you probably know it as well as i do, the very first that they proposed and trim propose called the vote was used to betterment and certainly for crimea because everybody like you speaks ukraine russian and they also feel russian and think russian. they didn't feel comfortable to leave a country that has taken

away from them, the ability to preserve the identity,. [inaudible] there was a decision made by them as we embraced. when it comes to minorities, i think as being connected with ukraine, you might compare the conditions in a way which only minorities can emphasize the national identity in crimea that exist, including the languages to be used in crimea.

think the rights of those are protected significantly better than anything they have known prior to that. they have the same rights as anybody in russia that are it. >> please wait for the microphone. >> thank you mr. investor. my name is chris barnes and i actually just started studying the russian language for the first time, but i can't say anything yet with confidence. >> on your next visit. >> earlier this year, former chairman of the senate armed services committee, sam nunn gave a lecture in which he declared that with the recent deterioration of u.s. russia relations, the risk of a nuclear

confrontation of potentially catastrophic proportion is now at its highest level since at least the end of the cold war. from your perspective or that of the russian government, do you agree with that assessment and if so, what do you believe canon must be taken by the u.s. and russian governments cooperatively to lessen that threat? >> with great respect, he is a colossal thinker especially in the area of nuclear issues, i demonstrate the view that the race to the nuclear war today is high because even with the current differences, i think we have enough reasonable people on both sides.

i would also underline the quality of the relations currently between us in general is certainly the lowest point after the end of the cold war. i agree with this. the risks of miscalculations have increased. i agree with that. especially with the armed forces , being the plate, nato forces being deployed next time sometimes in a very, how should i pull it put it in a politically polite way, where to show the strength of the united states, say 100 meters from the checkpoint of the border.

they can be seen marching there. that kind of feeling that they can to protect from our winter power and force can be applied against russia. it creates a lot of determination for russia to be prepared for anything. as a result. [inaudible] we see navy russian and baltics closer to our military bases.

all the ships are not just tourist cruisers. they are equipped with tomahawks , anti- ballistic systems, i don't know what else. it's next to our doorsteps and we don't know what can follow. if you remember there were a number of complaints. we were requested to fly with transponders. so far we haven't been able to engaged.

the number increased by nato has dramatically increased. the number of intelligence has dramatically increased. we all in russia see concern and we are strong enough to protect ourselves, but it really needs additional effort. it is a difficult situation.

>> my name is dimitri. i don't have an affiliation. my question is, two questions, one is about the bombing of hospitals in aleppo, if you could, on that what the stances and what's going on the other is about security in europe, do you see a good alternative from nato and if you would have started without nato how is you organize

>> do not bomb hospitals. what we see on the streets are certainly pictures that are very painful to watch but i do not accept the notion that we are bombing hospitals. what they are showing, if there were some medical because the hospitals are designated. people can overfly and know it and here we don't know what is being shown but it's determined to present it where they give hostage to 2000 people.

it's wrong and it's false. the second question, i apologize. >> europe. [inaudible] i've never seen a situation, i had never thought of it. i remember when i was working there is some friends on the other side and i was joking that nato wasn't able to accept our thing, not because were different but because we made them change their character because it wouldn't be acceptable.

i would've started working on the agreement that not only control armament but building economic space, because you cannot solve all the issues between the states only by regulating arms. what is important that people talk to each other, people understand what the others are and i would repeat once again what the others are not because there are so many lies circling especially in the time of the

internet and we have tried something similar. we started negotiating a number of common spaces, economic and others and so far there hasn't been anything that is changing the situation. and with your permission i would return to russia american relations. why are relations are so fragile is because so many people believe things that are commented. people are similar. we aren't, we both believe in huge spaces. can you imagine that at the highest point, it was four or

five years ago our foreign relations in recent history, our trade was $39 billion that is less than 1% of american trade. if trade with russia stopped existing you are telling me you wouldn't notice. you are not a big and important partner either. the context between people, which is surprising, after the after the end of the cold war, our lawmakers were tough. we had exchanges between the congress and the russian parliament. sometimes it was organized but

one way or another, people are complaining. we have the situation. i've been to alaska and people come and planning in the past were coming to visit each other with the neighbors in the eastern part of russia. there were so many changes. even the supreme court's of the soviet union experience and change today. then nothing. what is left as a result?

[inaudible] >> i hope we're not going to use it. the quality of this relation 25 years after the end of the cold war has remained so immature and that is something that needs to be looked at in the future. >> so the reset was not quite what you expected. >> we expected more. this commission that i was referring to several times, i've believed long enough to know that creating a bureaucratic system doesn't necessarily easily translate. [inaudible] we have exchanges between professionals, and i saw a number of areas where we were fermenting, not on the changes,

but, in programs, energy area, area, for example. you would be surprised, smart greed, something i had never been heard of in the past, it's something very interesting on both sides because we have a huge country that has been united in one way long, long ago you are working for smart grid and virtually there reinforcing as were so many others. >> i saw a hand away at the back. please wait for the microphone. >> thank you. [inaudible]

what is your version of why russia did leave the cfe treaty, and i thought it would be good to say and remind the audience that what was the timing of russia leaving the treaty. it was sometime in spring 2008, months before russia would intrude the territory of the syrian country, jordan in this case. we have to think about all the aid. i think it is worthwhile looking at the timeline when russian abandoned the treaty and what followed afterward. by one thinks russia did so. thank you. >> can i respond. >> yes, please. >> there are two issues. one the treaty has never been allowed to be amended because

the amendments haven't been put in force. so nato is still progressing in terms of membership. another issue is the event. [inaudible] what happened was a georgian president who now is on a wanted list by the georgian government- from ukraine, launched an attack against the citizens of jordan in the middle of the night with rockets. don't shake your head.

look at the history honestly. i did. i did. i was working on this issue. i came here in september 2008. >> i think will take one from the lady in the blue blazer and then we should let you go for your next appointment. thank you mr. investor. >> thank you mr. investor for your presentation and thank you for hope hosting us in enabling this opportunity. obviously u.s. rest russia relations are tense. one factor contributing to that, rightly so is ukraine. ukraine is an independent country with its own independent culture, language, history, national identity, worldview and the reason there is russia u.s. tension over ukraine is because russia does not want to recognize ukraine as a separate culture, people and sovereign

state. they claim part of their self claim. [inaudible] even though moscow didn't even exist then. they want to prevent the eu course which is a course we side demonstrated by the ukrainian people. >> is there a question in here in the literally and figuratively a flag in their hand. my question is, ten people dashed 10000 people have been killed in the senseless war. >> i agree. >> including your russian soldiers, including acquaintances of mine who have left their stable existences and other cities to go on fight as volunteers to defend their homeland. my question is, when will russia pull its troops out of ukraine.

my second question is, in the beginning. >> i think we need to stop. >> no no, wait. >> no, only because otherwise. >> my second question is there, at the beginning you said we do not interfere in the international affairs of the u.s. and that's important for the people here to understand. last week obama confirmed that the kremlin was behind the hacking of the dnc and other significant u.s. institutions and people. some people, some smart people are suggesting they have intelligence that russia is laying the groundwork to sow confusion around our election next month. sir can i please have your reaction to mr. obama's' claim. thank you. >> okay, one by one. on ukraine. we consider ukraine to be a sovereign state, great nation. we consider them our brothers.

we are so intertwined, there are so many families in ukraine that are russians. there's so many families and russia that are ukrainians. my father was born in the ukraine. my mother was born in the ukraine. i spent some time in my childhood going to school, and i understand pretty well what ukraine is and we do respect ukraine as a country. what we want to see happening is that they stop bombing their own people and start talking to them that would help them to see ukraine as their home and not as something because they speak russian. when it comes to the statement

of the intelligence about russia hacking, i have told you, and i repeat it, it is not correct. when it comes to the implication for the elections in the united states, it's something i am not planning to discuss. we have seen a number of statements by our colleagues in american intelligence on a number of issues that were not exactly true by the history. i can give you a number of examples. the white powder in the security council about biological weapons in iraq. we saw a statement that a week ago bombardment, syrian troops and it was based on the false intelligence. after several days of

intelligence exploration on the train. >> thank you for coming. we hope this is a process that will continue and that you will come back. >> i will. >> the issues are important and not always resolvable and sometimes almost contentious but i think it's very critical to have this discussion and dialogue. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] watch c-span's live coverage of the third visit debate between hillary clinton and donald trump

wednesday october 19. our preview starts at 7:30 pm eastern eastern. the briefing for the debate studio audience is at 830 eastern and a 90 debate is that 930 eastern. stay with us for your reaction including your calls and facebook posts. watch the debate live or on demand using your tablet or mobile device or your tv. listen to it on c-span radio. you can download it from the app store or google play. now candidates for nebraska's second congressional district. brad ashford and don debate u.s. middle east policy, isis, cyber security, healthcare, immigration and gun control.

>> the second congressional district debate presented by the omaha world herald. >> hello and welcome to the debate. we will be her moderators. thank you for joining us. for the next hour, we are hoping to have a robust exchange of ideas between the two candidates, republican challenger don and retired general and democrat brad ashford, the incumbent congressman and former state senator from omaha. we will make the debate as free-flowing as we can and we want to give equal time to each candidate. we are asking them keep their answers at about 60 seconds. we ask you to move on, please do so. >> in addition really reserve the right to ask follow-up

questions. at we start the debate with questions about the presidential race and the two party nominee. as a member of the house armed services committee you receive classified briefings in light of controversial e-mail system, our sister with the fbi director was considered reckless but how can you trust her to handle confidential information in the white house. >> thank you for putting this together as an exceptional opportunity for us and we appreciate it. thanks to kmt bnt omaha. you're right, i receive classified briefings on the armed services committee and others on a pretty much weekly basis. we are told about the classified information that we are getting and it is part of how i make my judgments on the floor. there is no excuse for secretary clinton's use of a private server. i have said that over and over again.

however, i do believe, secretary clinton does have the experience and certainly the relationships in congress to move our country forward. she knows the world leaders, she knows the leaders in congress than in the house and senate and that's a critical part as we move forward to have those kind of relationships. >> think thank you. you have 30 seconds. >> it was 2000 classified e-mails, some were top-secret and it undermined the national security of our country and she lied to the american people for 16 months. she still lies about the fact that certain information was not clamped that was. >> this next question is for you and you have 60 seconds. you have not real the possibility of voting for donald trump, although you want him to step down. given your military background,

do you believe he is fit to serve as commander-in-chief? i believe you said that you were very supportive of donald trump for many statements he's made up until the weekend.

then, you suggested that he quite frankly should not be -- he should step down. but then he said he would vote for him and he said again he would vote for him. he called the generals rebel. those kinds of statements that reflect to about his character and i don't think he is confident are qualified to be president of the united states. >> if i may, i didn't support during the primary. it was my first or second choice. brad has been on the leadership team and supported her. he said things that are inappropriate and indefensible. she did undermine the nation's security of my tour country. we have to vote for someone i have reservations about it in the end i will support him over her because in the end we cannot afford to have related in a country, spending mark, taxing one. >> we will start with which

nation do you think poses the greatest long-term threat to the united states and why. >> russia poses the greatest long-term threat. as i mentioned earlier i said on the subcommittee. i receive classified reasonings every week on the russian threat. there's no question that for many russia represents a threat that will be with us for a long time to come and they've exhibited that threat in syria and crimea throughout the baltic. the opportunity to visit our leaders throughout the middle east and it's clear to me that russia is pushing and pushing. we have made some decisions in the last year or so to aggressively defend against that good but the cyberissue is critical and we need to stand up our cyber command as we are doing to address this. russia's cearley is an idea that

threat. >> southern command has been stood up for a couple years now. i've been intelligence officer for roughly 30 years am also doing reconnaissance and abandon all of the cyberas well as a three year air force veteran. i think russia is the largest existential threat. they have intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines. putin has been weakness in this president and is trying to push out there to see how far you can go. we need to be strong. i think the more volatile threat is iran in 10 years. this one the destruction of the role and know how the nuclear capability that is recognized in a decade and not just scares most 10 years out. >> mr. bacon, how would, how much of a president obama a strategy of islamic state military in iraq and syria and what if anything would you do differently? >> i did one year in baghdad