grapes from the opposition at this point? 38% opposition, they're going to continue to operate. we don't expect putin to crack down on them or to be a major shift. he'll have 0 work with the new situation. he seems willing to want to do it. i think that the argument of comparing with luke shen ca is really beyond the pale. there was an election. he did get the 64% of the votes or whatever that of the, and therefore, you know, he has a right to govern. now, of course the opposition is going to continue to work but to think that this is going to lead to the overthrow of an administration it seems to me very farfetched. the other thing is, what is president putin going to do? there is a broad program of developing the far east, developing the arctic sops, the major advisory council has put forward a major plan for development of these

underdeveloped areas and putin has put his own weight behind it. if he's successful with that, he's probably going to become more popular than today and the opposition has to deal with that programmatically. i'm just saying, why is this such a dramatic thing that you think he will not last out his term when he has been elected with a significant majority. he does have a program. if the program doesn't work, he'll be in worse shape. if it does work, he'll probably be better off. how do you deal with this? he has won the electioning. >> thanks for the question. do i need the mic? well, first, on several points, on luke shen co. if you were beaten to blood with batons on the street of moscow for coming out,ed you not think it's a far fetcheded. comparison. if you're one of those people like the man thrown into jail 15 days for working down moscow central boulevard, you would not think it's a farfetched

conclusion. the only difference is you can shen cole did allow when we remember the events of 2010 and the major crackdown in december, luke shen cole did allow genuine opposition figures on the ballot in belarus in december 2010. people who were just released from jail recently. he did have course then rig the election, beat down supporters and everything but he did allow opposition on the ballot. in serbia they allowed opposition. in zimbabwe. when you talk about 64%, i don't want to -- i don't sound too harsh, but that's ridiculous. to have results, you need to have an election. it is not just a mechanical process of putting a paper in a box. you need to have candidates to have an election. bokosky not registered, over 20 political parties were

unregistered between 2007 and 2011. that's not an election when you can't go and vote for the opposition. when all you see on national tv is putin and a little bit of medvedev, that's not a free election, that's not a campaign. that's not a choice. so let's not talk about elections and results. the last more or less anything comparable to an election in russia was on the federal level in 1990 and towel when putin's official result was 52% and the moscow times investigation showed there were numerous cases of ballot stuffing in the region. even then he will didn't get a majority. because competitors weren't allowed on the ballot. you ask why people think he's not going to last out his term. well, because you look at the have i vergence between whether public mood is going with him and where he is going.

you just said he seems willing to work with the opposition. not really. if his press secretary said they should have their livers spread across the pavement, to me that's not willingness to work with the opposition. we'll see. those first five days are not very encouraging. but just as mrs. my loesch vish seemed very strong in his day and all these other examples that we've seen before, these people think they're very strong. they have their 64 in case of mubarak is, 80 percents election result before he was toppled by ta reerl square. my arguments come from first historical experience and then from -- i'm just back from moscow a few weeks ago. you should see the mood of people. when you have i mean, in our modern times, just to begin to think that somebody can be in power forever 24 years, this is

the 21st century. when putin came to power, look at what the world leaders did. david cameron worked at some consultancy firm. barack obama was a state senator. look what they were doing when he was in charge of russia. this is not the kind of thing people are willing to accept. this is why these young educated russians are coming out. he comes out and says okay, we're swoping jobs. it's not going to happen. so that's where this comes from. it goes against everything that's happening in the world including everything that's happening in russia. you can't rule the country if you lost the big cities. the majority of moscow is against him even by their own official results. mill solesvich. i think we're going the same way. i don't think he's going to last out six years and not able to complete the six years.

>> well, working mic phone, that's technological progress and maybe it will spread. i wouldn't want to try to -- >> ira strauss, committee on eastern europe and russiaen an nato. i gather your perspective that something like a new democratic transition or democratic restoration will occur in our lifetimes, maybe in the next decade, maybe in several years. and i don't want to debate schedules because i can't predict the future. when i first wrote that nato ought to be ready to throw an umbrella over the soviet space it was in 1985. gorbachev was not yet elected. i didn't expect it to happen in the next decade. i was surprised. now, you've written some things

about what a future democratic transition, whether it comes in one year, five or 15 will need in terms of its international policy. i think that's of interest to us here in washington. those here from the atlantic council. and one of the things you said which is identical to what yeltsin said, how many years ago, was it they will need to be a part of the west, no longer an adversary of the west. that means russia is negotiating to join owe ect. but the crucial thing is nato. you've written a very interesting article about this how they were fatally damaged at the start. i think that's correct. i remember it very well because that was my cause already back then. what will you need in the future and how would it be possible for the west to be better prepared if such an eventuality were to

occur? i'm not going to put 0ds on it being one year, five years or 20 but odds on it happening in our lifetime. it's worth considering what we need to be ready with also. >> thanks, ari for the question. you're referring to late '91 when president yeltsin expressed desire to join nato and he was kind of given a cold shower. that's right. that's 20 years ago. actually, the goal of eventual nato membership was present in all the major russian programs of all democratic and liberal par partiy parties. even a more farfetched example like the european union you see consistently in the polls especially of russians under the age of 30, a strong plurality wants russia to be a member of the eu, too. there is this is parallel track

of democratization happening alongside of integration into western structures. we're a european country. the it's just a question of institutionalizing that or there's the council of europe, the oldest european, pan-european organization which russia joined in the mid '90s. the g-was at the birmingham summit in 1998 when russia was accepted. they like to rewrite history as you know. i would certainly be in favor of nato membership. some of those will be more the leftists and nationalists. that will be sorted out by free election when it happens. there's no single program, there's no kind of single vertical. for now, as you understand, that's not the main whole point question. the main question is to start

changing this horrendous regime that's been there over a decade starting with the release of political prisoners and free elections and all the rest would come later. i just want to thank you for your efforts that so many years of doing that. it's nice to know that people resympathetic here and that -- and hopefully when a new elected government in russia does indicate an interest in further integration into european it's not going to be the same response as president yeltsin received in the late 1991. >> haven't heard the word kozoro mentioned in years. >> me, too. >>. >> my name is walter jirassic, member of atlantic council and global enterprise. my question will be to you.

i spoke with russians. i talked to russian people, as well. and i asked them to define democratic. not only in russia but other parts of the world. and they told me look, what are you talking about democracies? define new democracy in the united states when you have senators and congressmen who sit 20, 30 years in the seats and you have now putin let's say 12 years in office. so they ask me very simple question. define what is democracy. >> you're asking vlad to define it if? >> can i just piggyback on that and put it in a somewhat different way that add this to your answer which is talk a little bit about what unites the opposition and the extent to which the opposition is made up of democrats as opposed to

important segments of the population who oppose putin because they're two different things, being for a more democratic society, a more liberal society which is a slice of the yanic lek tore rat, but certainly much of what we read here, elements of the elements of the protesters and elements among those who have organized the protests are by no means appear bill no means to be liberals and at best have quite dubious democratic credentials in the sense that we in the west would think. drill down a little bit into the nature of the opposition as a democratic movement and elements that may be somewhat different and weave in an answer also to walter's question to the extent that you can. >> thanks for the question. the favorite retort line of all the putin officials when for instance when putin abolished

elections of governors in 2004 and he said well, the united states before 1913 didn't have the direct election of senators. they know how to come up with these retorting lines. the example i like to use, there was a scandal here in washington when it was "the washington post" published some i think it was to do with electronic surveillance but there was a big scandal and they forced essentially a newspaper forced the attorney general at the time gonzales to resign his post about five years ago. in russia, after the ntv channel came up with information that the prosecutor general received an aapartment from some of the people he was supposed to investigate for criminal acts and corruption, the kremlin shut down the ntv channel. that's the difference and the example. s in this is just a small thing. there's several. you mentioned some senators for 30 years. i'm sure there are a couple like lugar who just lost in the

primaries so he won't be there longer. so what, the can't be here longer than two four-year terms. imagine bill clinton would still be president. how would that be? would that be conceivable here or george bush senior? no, because such thing is a term limit we can have this conversation for several hours. democracy say tricky one because the word is loaded in russia and not always has positive connotations. if you look at all the polls and ask people to kind of to decide their preferences, would you want to elect your leadership people would want to the choose it is freely. do you think the press should have a right to criticize public firvels, the people would say yes. do you think local governors should it be an int. 0ed or electeds, people would

say electeds. if you actually do a serious polling, you would see that a strong majority of the russian societies, all the major things like all the things like president freedom, independent judiciary, elections for governors and parliament, and elections for the head of state, all these things there's no question what the majority of public stands. and in terms of the democratic elections of the opposition, there are certainly well-known characters like limonov who are less than democrats and that was played up very much by the putin media when the protests began big-time in december and when the state television was forced to show opposition leaders because they couldn't because they had 120,000 people standing in the middle of moscow, they couldn't ignore them anymore. but they tried to, if you looked at the picture on state tv, they

trial to show a person in a mask or somebody with a black flag or nationalist slogan to try to scare people. that was a tactic for a while. maybe we're corrupt, but look at these guys and look at do you really want somebody like the extreme right or limonov coming out. that was in december. then in february the lovato center did a big survey, perhaps the largest on sack ca rof avenue on the 24th of december, it was in february. it was the end of december when there were in excess of 20,000 people. and they did a poll to find out who these people really are. the kremlin was saying look here. i printed out the result just to get it right. 69% describe their views as democratic or liberal.

13% communists and 6% describe their views as nationalist. that i think is very much representative of the broader movement, maybe not in terms of the leadership of the organizing committee which was on purpose made to be more balanced between the left and the right the liberals and nationalists, socialists and conservatives. but the broad base is certainly democrat or european sense liberal so people who basically want to be citizens in their own country. people want to be citizens. that's the overwhelming -- when weise saw all the nationalists like due gan considered to be the father 6 intellectual neo-nazis in russia, people like an extreme nationalist ideologue, that's where all these people were. we do have some nationalists, sure and some hard left people,

too. but they're a small minority and you know, this is kremlin scare tactics to suggest that this is the alternative. >> sir? >> hector antonio rivas with alpac. i do want to respond to a comment you made to the first question. you made the comment response and question, you said let's not talk about elections or results. i agree talk about policy. i have seen in november of 2011 rigozon make the announcement for the strategic announcement of earth, the head of russian railways discuss the cooperation of the united states and russia to instruct the bering straits tunnel which i'm very sure people here are familiar with. now in a situation and in a context where two major things

are driving the fear of the american population which is the prospects of war and the financial collapse, this being put on the table i find is something to be seriously discussed between two major powers which are two nuclear powers in a time where civilization does need it. i'll also like to add that a lot of -- i've been to a number of these types of events, at the csi event yesterday. there's consistent questions brought up about humanitarian concerns to the russian situation. if that's the case, i ask why do we not add the greece situation into the discussion which is under a financial dictatorship, the conditions that are being asked for greece to stick to the bailout are atrocious. again, i'd just like to pose that question that when two clear policy initiatives for strategic collaboration between the united states and russia in the form of the sde and the bearing straits had been put on

the table, don't you think that's something should be discussed even by the opposition as well as various figures in the united states as opposed to the current drive which could lead to a confrontation between two nuclear powers especially given the construction of what i would say are necessary four phases of the ballistic missile defense systems in eastern europe? >> thanks for the question. well, i think just in general, before i answer specifically totalitarian illegitimate regimes don't make for good partners. look at the cooperation on syria and on miss this defense which you mentioned as proof of that. on the specific issues, i mean, there are some things like jackson van nick amendment or the wto membership, what the russian opposition is trying to to do is bring the countries closer together while making

clear this regime does not represent our country. you were at that the event yesterday so you're aware of this debate about the jackson van nick. and the entire russian leadership isn't 100% in favor of that. many figures in civil society, too. you get rid of an amendment which sanctions the country and is a great tool for putin. he says the amendment limits the trade with rauchia so the americans are anti-russia. you get rid thereafter and we all support the lifting of that the amendment. you say if you have peaceful demonstrations you shouldn't be able to come here for vacation or send your kids to study here. so you replace a measure that is a genuine irritant in releases with a measure that would only upset a handful of crooks, thieves and murderers in the kremlin and around it. that is an example of concrete cooperation which you mentioned.

the wto was a consensus. all major opposition leaders were publicly in favor of wto membership for the russian federation that came in. in terms of it initiatives proposes by rigozon, you wouldn't want to be involved in the initiatives proposed by him. i'm not saying this personally. maybe he's a very pleasant person. he collect s cast irons. he loves french poetry. if you look at his politics, he's absolutely virulent in nationalism and anti-westernism which was the backbone of his entire career for the last 20 years. i don't think you'd want to be voicing him up here and you know, advertising him. and there's no absolutely no contradiction i think between discussing concrete issues and not losing ground and not losing

face and not losing reputation on human rights did. diplomacy i think it was called. just the last point on the kind of the prag maggism, there was a brilliant "washington post" editorial i think it was a couple months ago when putin, quote unquote, won the election. it says it listed all the moral arguments for the u.s. to get tougher on human rights and to i think it was by fred hyatt. the moral arguments for we should stand for principles. it just had the very pragmatic point and it said, do you really think that an american administration doesn't matter which party, any american administration should put all the eggs in its relations with russia in a basket of an authoritarian leader who has tens of thousands of people demonstrating against him despite the repression and the pepper spray and the batons? is that really a stable regime

to put all the eggs in that basket and to conditioning the very important strategic relations between the u.s. and russia, as you said two nuclear poweres the in one man who does not have majority support and nobody knows how long he's going to stay there? i think there's no contradiction at all between thinking it strategically and also not hushing up the issues of repression of freedoms and human rights. both should be done at the same time. >> if i could hone in as a quick follow-up to a very closely related issue which is best exemplified by the horrible treatment of our ambassador there during the election campaign and i hear in my talks with russians var opinions on this in the opposition movement. what ought the u.s. do in terms of direct support for the ngos, for the opposition movements and so forthing? ross brought up the hal seon

days where we will an extensive set of efforts for that. mike mccall the ambassador spearheaded a lot of that. what's your view about what should the u.s. be doing in terms of helping or not these groups? >> i think first and foremost, the u.s. should not be hipping the putin regime. . the russian opposition is never asking for any support. that would be the best gift for putin and the regime. stop supporting him and when for instance when the u.s. state department announces a few days after the march 4th so-called election that we congratulate the russian people on holding this election and people take at best as a joke and the west as an insult when i you just had a vote where no opposition candidates were present and television was senscensored and

major democratic power in the world comes out and congratulates you on that election, that doesn't really hold water. that's why this once again this bill is is he important because it doesn't do anything for the russian opposition. it's for to us democracy in russia is a task for no outside actors. it's for russian society alone. but just stop supporting the regime. when these people steal the money and then keep them in western banks and buy property here and spend their vacations here and send their kids to study here, that's a means of supporting that corruption and supporting those crimes against the russian people and the russian state. and that's what they're afraid of by the way. if you look at one of the first decrees putin signed on monday was a decree requesting ordering the foreign ministry to make it a priority to stop the mag in its ski bill in the united states.

it was called extraction territorial sanctions in the united states against russian physical and legal entities or something like that, but that was the bill. he signed it two hours after his inauguration oath. that's how important that is for them. that's what they're sensitive to. so they're not going to have a place to spend the stolen money and the ill gotten profits and if they know if they violate the basic standards accepted in the international community like if they kick people who just peacefully protesting annen rig the elections they're not going to be accepted in a civilized world, that's the single most important thing to do. >> sir. >> i'm a member of the atlantic council. my question relates to foreign policy but i'll start from internal policy. when president putin became

president, and before that prime minister, public awareness about him was very, very low as we all remember and he went through the this kind of power vertical. why are some military activities chesh nillia, chechen republic at that time and nationalistic pretty much notes. looking at this experience today and looking at the some of the tense relationships that russia has with some of its neighbors particularly georgia, do you see that that card may be played for internal purposes and is there any resource now? does president putin have resource today to use that card in the same way that he used it in 1989 to make him more popular today? thank you. >> i think that last point is precisely it. the -- the related chechnya was

kind of a war but also a terrorism card. that's what made him present and the mysterious apartment bombings in late '89 and the attacks and we remember what will effect it had then, a chilling effect and mass hysteria and he came to power on that wave. a couple years ago when there was a terrorist attack in the. moscow metro underneath the fsb building, and if you remember the reaction then was what is this? he's been there ten years. he's taken away basically all the rights and freedoms in return for quote stability and security. and these guys are blowing up metro station hundred yards from the fsb building? so the occurrence was the same. the reaction was diametrically different. it doesn't work anymore. so if you're asking can he do it? sure he can. another war, c