300 local and state chambers of commerce and farm bureaus. without objection, this letter will be entered into the record at this point. now, let me just say i want to thank my colleagues for their participation today and, of course, i want to thank our two witnesses for joining us here. i have great respect for both of you and have known you for a long time. i recognize that there are passionately held views on both sides of these issues and that these debates aren't easy for anyone. nobody has had a picnic here. you all know where i stand when it comes to trade. i want to convince everyone to support tpa. i wish we could report a tpa bill unanimously, but it's clear we're not going to be able to do that. still we've done our best to

create a product and a process on this legislation that's bipartisan. and so far i think we've really been successful, and i think most people would agree with that. this is important for our country. it's important for our industry and our country. in the end i think we'll have members from both parties supporting our bill. i really want to personally thank senator wyden for his help on this effort. it's been a difficult one for him and for many of my colleagues on the democrat side and mr. trumka you haven't helped them here today very much with their criticisms. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. >> well i expect nothing less than that from you i'll tell you. i have known you a long time and i have a lot of respect for you. but senator wyden deserves a lot of credit here. i think it's very important we move forward and let the committee function properly and i'm looking forward to even more

lively discussion and debate tomorrow as we mark up this bill. let me just say that i have tremendous respect for both of you. mr. donohue, you've been around here a long time. you're no shrinking violet, i'll tell you, and you handle yourself very well and you represent the business community about as well as anybody i have ever seen, and i have seen a lot of great business leaders. mr. trumka i think you represent the unions very well. you're a tough guy, you're a smart guy and even though we disagree on this bill i have been paying pretty strict attention to you, too. this is basically your administration that is doing this. i'm trying to help the president on this bill. i personally think they're right in pushing it the way they have but i still have the obligation to just tell you how much i respect and appreciate you as well. and i look forward to -- we're going to have to find some

things we can work on together, and we have in the past but i think we've got to find some things to work on together, and i'm going to count on you to help me to understand that, okay? but with that let me just say that i've been really appreciative that you both have been willing to stay this long and to answer every question anybody has asked, and with that we'll recess until further notice. thanks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you bet. thank you.

>> in terms of the enforced bill that's now part of the senate version of the customs authorization, that has met resistance in the house where they like protect for the same issue to fight evasion of duties. do you see a compromise there or do you think that you will go with enforce tomorrow? >> i think we'll go to enforce.

i believe -- look, we've worked this out over years and between both houses and between both parties, and it's a sensitive thing that we've got to get through, and, you know, i'm not going to be very enamored with most amendments. so we're just going to do the best we can tomorrow. >> once the house and senate committee have acted do you expect the house floor to be first before the senate floor or the tpa bill? >> no. we expect the senate floor to be first, and then we'll get this over to the house and we have to do our job here. >> is the currency legislation s that from senator schumer or from senators portman and stoudemire? >> well, as i understand each of them have an amendment. we'll just have to see. >> you'll know which one is germane or not. >> well, i'm not going to rule on it here. i'll put it that way.

>> have you spoken to mr. mcconnell about the senate vote, the full senate vote? >> of course. >> when do you expect that? >> well, that's up to senator mcconnell. i've got to go you guys. i have a whole chamber. a bunch of manufacturers in my office. >> your outlook for tomorrow, the vote count tomorrow on the legislation? >> what's my outlook? >> for the vote tomorrow, for the markup. >> well i hope so. i don't intend to get much more than tomorrow. i think we will report it tomorrow if we can. it's a hot bill. as you can see, there's some people -- >> -- a good amount of democratic support. >> we'll have to wait and see. i have my ideas on that. we're pretty much on top of it, but we'll -- >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll see you. today the senate finance committee works on a u.s. trade

bill, including fast track trade promotion authority which would give the president leeway in negotiating international trade deals. live coverage begins at 10:45 eastern time here on c-span3. >> in 2003 "new york times" reporter judith miller wrote several stories on the lead up to the invasion of iraq and weapons of mass destruction. in an effort to reveal her source, vice president cheney's source skooser libby she was found in contempt of court and imprisoned in a federal jail for 85 days. sunday she talks about her time in jail as well as her new book "the story: a reporter's journal." >> i was in jail because i refused to reveal the identity of a source whom i thought did not want his identity revealed. in our business, as you know, protecting sources is the life's blood of independent journalism,

and i really felt that unless the people that i routinely spoke to who had access to classified information unless they could trust me to protect them, my sources would dry up and eventually i'd just be writing what the government wanted you to write and so i felt this was a question of principle, that i didn't really have much choice. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q & a." now, a debate about how the west should deal with russia and russian president vladimir putin. nyu professor stephen cohen and journalist vladimir pozner argued for closer engagement. "washington post" columnist anne applebaum and russian dissident garry kasparov argue the west should take a more hardline stance on russia. from toronto, this is an hour and 35 minutes.

>> you don't know which of your facts will be demolished. >> we created colonialism. we created fascism. we created communism. >> you don't know which of your arguments will be totally destroyed. >> he's never said precipitous withdrawal. >> he said immediately. >> is it possible to actually complete a sentence? >> and then you have to come back and you are rattled you're shaken up. >> let's save the bleeding heart for someone else. it's time to change. >> you don't know what the hell to say, but you have to say something. >> it makes us objects in a cruel experiment and over us is instilled a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine north korea. >> the question is are men obsolete? my conclusion to this question is no, i won't let you be you

[ muted ]. we are going 50/50 on this. >> nor are we in the house of commons. >> oh so what big deal? >> with a performance like, that you'll get there i promise. >> i quoted -- >> show m your pretext. >> you can keep screaming that and it doesn't change the point. >> barack obama has systematically rebuilt the trust of the world the security council and other institutions. >> you must not talk to anybody in the world, any of our allies in order to believe that. >> we're all in this so the united states can't pull itself out by running a trade surplus unless we can find another planet to sell to. >> are we really prepared to say if you're successful enough we should rip you off? you owe it to us. how dare you be so successful. >> that's the kind of hypocritical argument if i was chinese i would find quite annoying. >> you're obviously finding it annoying even though you're not chinese.

>> ladies and gentlemen, welcome. [ applause ] my name is rudyard griffiths and it is my privilege to both organize this debate series and to once again serve as your moderator. i want to start tonight's proceedings by welcoming the north americanwide television and radio audience tuning into this debate from cbc radioed idea to cpac, canada's public affairs channel, to c-span across the continental united states. a warm hello also to our online audience watching right now on munk debates.com. it's terrific to have you as virtual participants in tonight's proceedings. and helgow to you, the over 3,000 people that have filled roy thompson hall to capacity for yet another munk debate.

bravo! [ applause ] bravo. tonight represents a milestone of sorts for the munk debates. this is our 15th semi annual event. we've been at this for 7 1/2 years now, and our ability to debate in and debate out to bring the brightest minds, the sharpest thinkers here to toronto to debate the big issues facing the world and canada would not be possible without the foresight, the generosity, and the commitment of our host tonight. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in an appreciation of the co-founders, peter and melanie munk. thank you, guys. [ applause ] well, let's get this debate under way and our debaters out here on this center stage. arguing for the resolution, be it resolved the west should

engage not isolate, russia is the emmy award winning journalist top rated russian tv broadcasters and best selling author vladimir pozner. vladimir. [ applause ] pozner's teammate tonight is a celebrated scholar of soviet and post-soviet russia. he is a contributing editor "the nation qwest nation" magazine and he's here from new york city. please welcome stephen f. cohen. [ applause ] well, one team of great debaters deserves another and arguing against the resolution, be it resolved the west should engage not isolate, russia is the warsaw based pulitzer prize

winning author and "washington post" columnist anne applebaum. anne, come on out. [ applause ] anne's debating partner tonight is a prominent russian dissident. he's the chair of the new york based international human rights foundation, and as he's best known as the world's greatest living chess player. ladies and gentlemen garyry kasparov kasparov. [ applause ] thank you. well, a little predebate business to take care of. four quick items. number one, power up your smartphones. we have a hash tag going tonight, munk debate. you can input on what you're hearing on stage give your analysis and commentary on the debates. also, we've got an online poll

going that's available to people here in the audience and those of you watching online. that url is www.monk debates.com/vote. that will take us through the next hour and a half with instantaneous audience reaction to the proceedings here on stage. next, very important counting down already, the clock. this is going to keep our debate on time and our debaters on their toes. when you see this clock reach zero or approaching zero i want you to join me in a round of applause. again, that will move us through the evening quickly and keep us on time. let's now review though how this audience here in the room voted on tonight's resolution coming into this debate. you were asked agree or disagree, should the west engage or isolate russia? if we can have those results now up on it's screen.

there we go. 57% agree with the motion. 43% disagree. quite close. this debate could go either way. and to get a sense of how much of this room, how much public opinion is in play right now, we asked you a second question, depending what you hear tonight, are you open to changing your vote? so let's have those. that's a yes/no. 86% of you. this is an indecisive audience. come on, what's going on here? 86% could go either way. so debaters this debate is very much in play. as we agreed before hand, the order of opening statements mr. vladimir pozner your six minutes starts now. >> thank you. i haven't yet started and the clock is moving. could you go back to six, please? thank you.

ladies and gentlemen, i have not come here to argue russia's case. i have come here to argue the case that isolating any country is not only counterproductive but dangerous, especially when the country is as big, as wealthy, as powerful, and as unpredictable as russia. allow me to share with all of you a bit of history. when the russian empire crumbled in 1917 and the bolsheviks came to power the west refused to recognize first soviet russia and then the soviet union. isolation and nonengagement was the word of the day and so for a decade or so the country was cast by western media as an evil power and left to stew in its own juices. the prediction was that it would inevitably fall apart, that it was economically dead in the water, that its people would rise up and destroy the regime. as we all know, none of this happened. in 1929 the west was hit by the

worst economic crisis in its history. meanwhile, in 1929 the ussr announced its first five-year plan of economic development. over those years of nonrecognition and isolation the soviet leadership headed by stalin had been allowed to conduct a massive bloodbath in the tunt. it had physically wiped out all political opposition. it had destroyed millions and millions of peasants to refused to adhere to the collective farm system. it had starved to death millions of ukrainian farmers who would not bow to the draconian demands for wheat and flour. it was in the process of annihilating russia's most precious human resource the intelligence. it was in the process of creating a new human entity, the so-called homeless soviet. the great terror of 1937 and 1938 lay just ahead but nonrecognition, nonengagement, and isolation, noninterference, if you will, on the west's part,

the absence of any united outcry, all this played no small role in allowing the soviet system to evolve the way it did. it would be remiss of me on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the defeat of nazi germany not to mention the fact that by the end of the 1930s the west, in particular great britain and france, refused to engage the ussr in an alliance against hitler. the consequence being the ib famous moll love ribbon pact of august 1939 with its secret protocol whereby the independent baltic states of estonia, lat via, and lithuania were sold off to the soviet union as was part of poland. and while it is true that ultimately it was the soviet union that broke the nazi's back, as testified to by the likes of winston churchill and franklin delano roosevelt, it's also true that the soviet union went on to occupy all the

countries of eastern europe as well as some of central europe. it's also true that it became a military super power and we should thank our lucky stars that world war iii never happened thanks to m.a.d. mutually assured destruction. the ussr fell apart not because it was isolated not because of nonengagement on the part of the west which in fact actually made it stronger. it fell apart because the system ceased to function. it was simply not viable. and when it fell apart, when first gor ba chev and then yeltsin came to power what was the west's response? did it engage the new russia? if we look a little deeper than the good old gorby pap. the policy was this, you lost the cold war just go back into

your cave, you're a second rate country and we don't care about you anymore. had the west the united states first and foremost decided to engage gor ba chev's soviet union and yeltsin's russia, engage with the same aims it engaged post-war germany and italy, help create and support democratic development and institutions russia today would be a very different country. so in conclusion, let me say this, the russia that exists today is to a large measure the result of nonengagement by the west. of a policy aimed at humbling what is a nation of proud people. i vote for engagement because i want to see change in russia, change positive, both for russia and for the west. thank you. [ applause ]

>> anne applebaum, you're next. >> thank you very much rudyard, and thanks to this fantastic sellout audience. but no thanks to whoever wrote the resolution which garry kasparov and i must oppose this evening. i, like the rest of you believe very strongly engagement is a positive thing. engagement, integration, peace, and prosperity are all linked. isolation by contrast sounds negative and confrontational. myself, i have long promoted engagement of eastern europe and advocated the integration of eastern europe with the west and initially i believed that engage get, which worked so brilliantly in poe laent, where i lived, could work for russia too. i have concluded after a long experience that for the moment it can't. for this current russian regime as it now exists cannot be engaged. putin's russia is not just another autocracy or traditional

russian dictatorship as stephen cohen will probably tell you. russia's current leaders are not simply the political rulers of their nation. they are literally the country's owners. they control all of its major companies, all ever its media, all of its natural wealth. during the 1990s they took over the russian state in lead with organized crime using theft, graft, and money laundering. as a result russia is one of the most unequal countries in the world, 110 russians control 35% of the nation's wealth. many of those people also work in or with the kremlin. whatever you want to call this system, a mafia state, a feudal empire, it's a disaster for ordinary russians but it's also extremely dangerous for everybody else. for in order to stay in power in order to keep this tiny group of people enriched, putin and his cronies have long needed not only to spread the system to their immediate neighbors but to undermine rule of law and democracy in the west as well. how does this work? well putin and his henchmen

badly need to keep the international financial system safe for corrupt money. to do so, they buy western politicians, for example the former german chance lar, gar hart schroeder. when in power he stopped an investigation into a financial scam closely connected to putin. schroeder now works for gazprom. they have invested heavily in strategically important companies hoping they will acquire the political influence they need. they make ample use of tax havens thereby enriching the providers of these corruption conversation and depriving legitimate governments of revenue. how to stop this? only by disengaged and isolating the problem. let's get russian money out of the western financial system. a second example putin and his henchmen are often frustrated by western multinatural institutions like the eu. and nato. a unitede u energy policy would make it much more difficult for russia to use its gas pipelines as it does now to blackmail and

bully its neighbors. if it weren't for nato, russia would find it much easier, for example, to take the land it badly wants in the arctic. and so the russian regime has invested heavily in anti-europe pen, anti-transatlantic, and even fascist political movements all across europe. a russian bank has lent 9 million euros to marine la pen, the leader of the far right in france. russia also maintains strong political and financial links to the anti-sem met tick party in hungary and far right groups in germany, italy, and many other countries. what to do about this problem? we need to disengage and isolate. let's get russian money out of european politics. thirdly, the russian regime has invested massively in an e nor missystem of disinformation. television stations in multiple languages, websites, fake think tanks and a vast army of internet trolls who are designed -- whose efforts are

designed to create chaos and confusion. it's not about saying that russia is a great country. no, when a malaysian plane was shot down by a russian missile last summer, the russian media responded with multiple absurd conspiracy theories. for example that the plane was full of dead people when it took off. but even on an ordinary day russia today, the russian english language channel is capable of reporting on the cia's creation of ebola. how can we break through this fog and shore up our traditions of objective reporting? yes, we have to disengage and isolate. let's work harder to identify russian lies and get them out of our media. you'll note that i haven't yet mentioned ukraine. that's because you can't understand the recent crisis unless you understand the true nature of the russian regime i have just described. for two decades russia has maintained control over ukraine

by investing in politicians companies, and disinformation. putin hoped to create in ukraine a copycat colonial version of the political system he invented in russia and he almost succeeded. the young, pro-europe pen and pro-democracy ewe yan krahns who went on the streets in december 2013 were not fighting russia as a nation they were fighting og ligas, corruption and putinism. how can we assist these young ukrainians? we need to maintain sanctions on those putin cronies who control the company. we need to make putin pay a high price for invading a neighbor so that he doesn't invade another one. the best way to do this is through disengagement and isolation in this sense. isolate russian money isolate russian oligarchs. prevent russian violence and corruption from distorting the politics of eastern europe, western europe and north

america. putinism is a danger to russians and to ukrainians and all of us. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> ten seconds on the clock, anne. that was impressive. stephen, you're up yet. >> do i get -- >> no you can't take it back. >> unlike miss applebaum, i come here, my first trip to canada, as a patriot of american and canadian national security on behalf of my family and yours. to achieve that kind of security in the world we need a partner in the kremlin. not a friend not a friend, but a partner who shares our fundamental security interests, and to achieve that, we must not merely engage russia. we must pursue full kooges on security and other matters with

russia. that is our real reality today, that thationnational security, mine and yours, still runs through moscow. this is an ex i was sten shall truth. why? remember what the former united states senator daniel patrick moynihan once said. it's profound. i quote everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions, but not to his or her own facts. please keep this in mind because here are the facts. the world today is much more dangerous, less stable, less ordered than it was 25 years ago when the soviet union existed. there are more nuclear states but less control over nuclear weapons, over nuclear know-how over nuclear materials. there are more regional conflicts, more open ethnic and religious hatreds, more political extremism and intolerance.

as a result there is more terrorism and in more places and making all this worse, there is more economic and social deprivations and resentment and as we all know there are more environmental dangers and foreseeable shortages of the earth's resources. here is the other fact. it's not an opinion it's a fact. not one of these existential dangers can be dealt with effectively without russia's corporation no matter who sits in the kremlin. even after the soviet union, russia remains the world's largest territorial country and one that straddles the fateful front line between western and islamic civilization. russia still has proportionately more of the world's natural resources from energy to fresh water than any other nation, and, of course russia has its arsenals and stockpiles of every conceivable weapon of mass destruction.

still more, whether we like it or not, russia still has sympathizers, partners, and allies around the world, even in europe, and even in the western hemisphere hemisphere. these are facts not opinions. what's the alternative? our opponents say it is to isolate russia. they mean to weaken destabilize, and carry out regime change as if they could in russia. they rely not on facts but on three fundamental fallacies based on their opinions for which there are very little, if any, facts. fallacy number one, in this globalized world it is impossible, impossible to isolate russia. russia is too big, too rich too interconnected in today's world. russia has many options apart from the west and in the west. one example, ever since several months ago president obama said it was american policy to isolate russia, the russian state under putin has signed

more foreign, more agreements financial, political, economic and military with foreign states than has washington. russia is connected. russia has other places to go if we push them out of the west. fallacy number two, isolating russia from the west will not make moscow more cooperative or compliant. instead, we know what russia will do. it's doing it today. it will turn elsewhere, above all to the east, above all to china, and to many other dozens of regions and regimes that harbor resentments against the west, america and europe and canada, and what will russia do if we so isolate them? it will sell them nuclear weapons -- excuse me nuclear reactors. it will sell them excellent weapons. it will give them credit. it will protect them politically at the united nations with its veto. fallacy number three, a weakened destabilized russia will make every danger i have listed worse

and create new ones. consider, for example, if this policy of isolation with its subpolicy of weakening moscow would succeed, what would become of russia's weapons of mass destruction if moscow's control over them diminished? think about that. think about yourselves. think about your children. think about this kind of madness. is that what we really want? finally, what arguments at base do our opponents make in favor of trying to isolate russia? none that i can see, but the towering example and inevitably miss applebaum would mention it. it's entirely putin's fault. the west bears no responsibility. it's the first time in modern history one side is entirely -- we made no mistakes in our policy whatsoever, this is not factual. but leave ukraine to another debate if you wish. i want to end by pointing out what ukraine has already cost us in terms of our national security.

it is losing us a security partner in the kremlin not just putin, but perhaps for generations or at least years to come. it is splitting europe against american leadership and possibly undermining the transatlantic alliance and having plunged us into a new combed war, it is bringing us closer to an actual war with nuclear russia than we have been since the cuban missile crisis. these are the facts. [ applause ] >> garry kasparov, your six minutes, please. >> thank you very much. i'm here in this audience not as just neighbor of mr. cohen because we both live in upper west side in new york which was not my first choice but as a patriot of my country russia. i don't feel very comfortable

arguing against the resolution because my dream from early days when i was a kid a chess prodigy, traveling abroad playing in the soviet yet and then under the russian flag was to engage my country, to make it a real factor in the progress of humanity. i knew that despite the regime that i hated russia, soviet union at that time had a huge potential. it's intellectual, cultural and also national resources. and it seemed to me and for many others, for millions in my country, in even europe and else why elsewhere in the world, that our regime came true in 1991. the regime collapsed. celebrating crowds talk. it was not an easy time because as you remember, yugoslavia had

also collapsed, ended in a terrible civil war. russia happily escaped that. thanks to boris yeltsin to his wisdom and his ability to understand that we needed an agreement with the former soviet republics to make sure we can move into the future. russia was i wouldn't say rewarded, but it was engaged from the very beginning. what about the billions and billions of western money as aid to support russian economy? and in 1998 during the financial collapse, its imf loan actually helped russia to escape from the abyss and by the end of yeltsin's rule russia was already on the verge of recovery. actually the highest growth of gdp in russia was in year 2000. and then putin comes in. so that was probably greatest mistake yeltsin made and we had a kgb lieutenant colonel nine

years after the collapse of the soviet union. first thing he did restored soviet anthem for those who hear what was his long-term agenda. during these years we saw a total collapse of this feeble democracy under yeltsin. first it was turned into one party dictatorship and it ended up with one-man dictatorship, the most unstable and dangerous form of governance because it's all about one man. the whole legacy of the regime based on his charisma and his ability to exult the audience. the propaganda machine works for his greatness. after running out of animus inside a country he turns elsewhere. in 2005 when i stopped playing chess and i turned for some people mistakenly called russian politics because when you say politics, you think about political parties being funded. you think of debates. you think about fund-raising and many other things elections. so i knew, i knew it was an

uphill battle where my chess experience couldn't help me at all. in chess we had fixed rules and unpredictable results. in putin's russia, it's exactly the opposite. [ applause ] and it's all happened with engagement. i remember how it was horror we looked at the pictures on russian television in 2006 when putin was hosting g-7. i never called it g-8. for me it was g-7 plus 1. by the way, that was given to yeltsin as an advance. it was like a preliminary reward. russia was not a democracy, was not a great industrial power. china never made to g-8. india never made to g-8. russia did. how could we attack putin and his democratic values if we could see him, you know, being embraced and hugged by blair schroeder, chirac. so russian propaganda machine

worked for their advantage. of course, while we're talking about foreign aggression i can't escape ukraine. of course ukrainian case undermines, undermines the authority of nato and the united states and, again, it was the only way for putin to go because economy no longer offers him an excuse to stay in power forever because he's now ruler for life everybody understands it and he needed this aggression as did he in georgia in 2008 but now it's ukraine and let's not forget ukraine has been disarmed by united states and united kingdom in 1994 by forced to sign budapest memorandum. ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal in the you're. more than uk france and china combined. 1200 nuclear warheads. if some of these warheads were aiming at moscow today, putin would never cross ukrainian border. [ applause ] that was a signature of bill clinton and john major on the document which ended -- by the

way, disarming small nuclear arsenals from kazakhstan to bell russia which was very important because it created a nuclear free fall of soviet union but it was done in exchange for territorial integrity. if we think crimea is a local regional affair we're wrong because the message that is being sent to every country in the world, you want to protect your sovereignty, get the nukes. that's why the whole thing, ukrainian crisis, ukrainian tragedy, it affects everybody on this planet. i hope eventually we'll recognize it's not about isolating russia it's about isolating putin's regime which is a dangerous virus. you don't engage the virus. it needs to be contained. thank you. [ applause ] >> strong opening statements for a great debate. now we're going to go to timed

rebuttals. i want to give each side an opportunity to rebut what they have heard. we will ask the pro side to speak first. vladimir vladimir, you have two minutes to reflect on what you have heard from anne and from garry and then i will go to you stephen after and we'll hear from the other side. >> do i remain seated? >> it's up to you. >> you can stand sit -- take a stroll if you'd like. >> the problem is for me that the majority of people in this audience, if we're honest really don't know much about russia or the ukraine. and so you can say anything. billions and billions? you've got to be kidding. it's not true. billions and billions were not invested, and what was invested was invested to make money. all of these things -- putin's cronies, why are they cronies? why are they not his comrades? i mean, this is all about the wording. it's not about the facts.

the facts that we hear. if, indeed, ukraine had nuclear missiles can you imagine what kind of a chess game we'd have? there would be nobody left to play it. is that what we're looking for? thank heavens they don't have missiles in that country, and the fewer missiles there are in the world the better it's going to be. so i'm not going to get into this you said this wrong and -- nitpicking kind of stuff. to me the really basic thing is do we want a russia that is pushed out of everything doing whatever it's doing in no way answering for what it does, not under any pressure from outside because it's not engaged? so do we want engagement? and who is it better for? is it good for the west or is it bad? is it good for russia or is it

bad? and it's not about putin. russia has always been in the crosshairs of the west for a long, long time. perhaps for good reason. but if you take it just to putin, then it's a big mistake. it's not about putin. it's about a much more basic relationship. [ applause ] >> i didn't know that mr. kasparov was stalking me. i had no idea he lived on the upper west side, and i'm hoping it will end up in a coffee house there for a friendly talk, but i wouldn't want him making any western policy. this becomes and it stays in this debate and in the united states particularly a discussion of putin. henry kissinger, who is 91 and

not thought to be soft on anybody, wrote in miss applebaum's own newspaper back in march 2014 the demonization of putin is not a policy. it's an alibi for not having a policy and i would say that dr. kissinger could have gone farther and said the demonization of putin is an excuse to abandon analysis to obscure pearl rillrilous facts that face us, and to make statements about an evil in moscow, a mafia state, a hitler. it's not true. and then alongside of it comes inevitably this romance with the yeltsin 1990s. maybe it was great for mr. kasparov, maybe it was great for poland and eastern europe i don't know, but when mr. yeltsin

was forced from office as he was and as garry well knows 75% of russians lived in poverty and billions and billions of american and western dollars that he so romantically thinks were sent to moscow were collected by mr. yet sibltsinyeltsin's friends and sent back to the bank of new york where they were laundered and where a criminal case was brought against the bank for that. so this romance of the 1990s when russia was on its knees ruled by a weak ruler and pillaged by a mafia brings no indignation. it's all putin. so let's think about the real problems in the world and about our security, please. [ applause ] >> to be clear, the russia that we have today, the current russian regime as it exists now,

is the result of our failed policy of engagement. have we isolated and humiliated russia since 1991? no. not only was post-soviet russia not humiliated, russia was given de facto great power status as you have just heard. they received the soviet u.n. seat, soviet embassies and soviet nuclear weapons transferred from ukraine under the terms of the 1994 budapest memorandum. from the beginning a series of american presidents, all of them in fact, have sought to build up russia's international status. presidents clinton and bush invited russia to join the g-8 although russia was not one of the top economies. russia was invited to join the council of europe although it's not a democracy. it was invited to join the world trade organization whose rules it systematically violates. during that same period while we were engaging russia, while we were inviting russia into our

institutions, while we were attempting to create a russia, what was russia doing in putin invaded chechnya not once but twice. he invaded georgia, he invaded ukraine. he built up his military system. last month he helt a military exercise in the arctic involving 80,000 troops 220 aircraft, and 41 ships. earlier this year he conducted an equally vast exercise in the baltic. in 2009 and 2013 he conducted military exercises which concluded with a practice run of the nuclear bombardment of warsaw. this is a consider with while engaging with the west -- incidentally you can't have it both ways. you can't say putin was laundering his@svezx money in western banks and we were isolating him. no, while we engaged with him while we included him, while we let them use our banking system what were they doing? they were recreating a soviet-style nuclear arsenal and a soviet-style military that they want to use against us.

[ applause ] >> all willing to learn. it's the first time this debate i heard that engage the in the '20s so prevent stalinist terror. [ applause ] i always believed it was a criminal regime founded by lennon and stalin and others and whatever the west did in the 'twerts was irrelevant, and it was lennon who said that we'll use them as useful idiot who sell us the very rope we will use to hang them. vladimir lenin. i'm not here to tell that yeltsin's regime was a perfect democracy. i have a lot of criticism and i believe russia missed great opportunities to be turned into a proper democratic state with established institutions and

normal check and balances system. it didn't happen, and there's a lot of criticism to yeltsin which is justified, but again we avoideded worst. we ajouded yugoslavy which could have happened if which would have happened if we had someone like putin there. and i agree there was massive corruption under boris yeltsin when the second term when the oligarchs. they didn't care about democracy. they wanted to protect the oell oligarchy. if you're so lucky to share the same school or to be put in a judo class, you are now on the forbes list. the country is owned by very few families. and it's ironically all these people are so close to mr. putin. they're fighting for power.

and it's a fight for survival. and that's the only item in putin's agenda, sustain power and he will do whatever because he has no other choice. he will commit every crime to make sure that he can stay in kremlin. >> ladies and gentlemen, this debate is set. the table is set, so to speak and now we want to get into an exchange with these debaters on a variety of topics related to the subject. and vladimir since you spoke first, let me come to you and pick up on something that ann made in her comments just now. a lot of people in this audience are probably wondering you know, obama's reset, the famous reset, the degree to which this administration previously had attempted to roll back a series of policies of the previous bush administration which were seen as exclusionary to russia. what did that lead to? it led to crimea. it led to the ukraine. how do you respond to the perceived failure of that policy?

>> first of all, it did not. secondly, the knowledge of russia was so poor that they even misspelled the word reset in russian. we had to correct them for that. it would be funny if it happened in english. this did not lead to crimea at all. if you want, when we're talking about whether or not russia was humiliated yugoslavia is a perfect example. the bombardment of yugoslavia. when russia begged not to do it. begged. and that was in yeltsin's times. the russians were told, just shut up. and since the u.n. would not condone it, nato do it. and then, of course kosovo was allowed to leave serbia after 500 years. why was that possible? why were the russians ignored? that's the kind of humiliation that's led to the greatest anti-american sentiment in russia that i have ever known. much more than during soviet times. the average russian today is absolutely anti-american, and that wasn't the case. it was anti-bush anti-reagan,

yes, but not anti-american. there's a reason for it. it's not just propaganda. there's a lot of propaganda. >> there is a propaganda. >> there's a lot. >> '78, she was born and raised under stalin. she said she never heard just a concentrated message of hatred. >> why are you yelling? >> why am i yelling? >> i have hearing. i have good hearing. >> because i'm russian also and i know russian. >> he's russian. >> oh, so russians yell. that's the idea, right? they also drink vodka, dance, play and all of that. russians are regular normal people. what i'm saying is this. your mother had her experience. i think i'm even older than your mother. >> yes. >> and i lived in the soviet union. >> but we lived on a different side of the sense. you were on the propaganda side. we were on the opposite side listening to you. >> not true. you don't know anything about me. the propaganda in russia was very different. it was far less sophisticated because russia was totally isolated. >> you mean the soviet union.

>> soviet union. >> today is more sophisticated, i agree. >> and today it's much more sophisticated. it's much more dangerous. i'm not saying it isn't. >> there's better pay. >> would you not interrupt? >> no, no no i'm saying. >> but the average russian, i'm saying to you, sadly, is anti-american. sadly. >> let's have you guys reflect on that. >> what are you saying? >> what vladimir is saying is that the policy of call it what you want containment, isolation is stoking the very anti-american sentiments that empower putin and his ruling clique. and why don't you respond to that. >> look, we created putin and his ruling clique. our banks, our banking system laundered the money and our tax havens created it. so, you know, stop acting like, you know they're somehow a reaction to our isolation. we created it. we kept putin on board. we invited him to the meetings. we tried to make him part -- and i think actually in the beginning, with very good intentions. we wanted putin to be part of

the west and we had this idea that russia is a kind of candidate western country, and that we're just nice enough, then they'll join. what we've discovered is that it has evolved into something really quite different. it's not the soviet union. it's very different from the soviet union. and actually soviet analogies are wrong. it's not nazi germany either. these are bad analogy. it's a very new kind of very, very sophisticated propaganda-run state. you know this is a country in which every single television channel and every single newspaper and every single almost every single internet website with a few tiny exceptions are controlled by the state and in such a way that they appear to be all slightly different. this is not one providence saying one thing every day. this is a wide spectrum of different media. and they all say the same thing in a tabloid way in a sophisticated way, in an entertainment way or in a news way. they're telling people the same stories that putin wants them to hear. and the story they've been telling for the last several

many months, actually, now is bitterly anti-american, bitterly anti-european, and now very close to becoming warmongering in a way that i never even remember even from a year ago. the hatred towards ukraine, the hatred towards american -- americans, the use of semifascist symbolism and people marching and angered faces, this is something really, really new and different. no wonder people are anti-american. >> well effectively steven engagement isn't possible because there isn't a partner on the other side to reach across to. >> i'm having a hard time because i thought we agreed or i tried to sign a contract with the audience that we would deal with some facts. i read -- i read ten russian newspapers a day. across the spectrum. >> how many other newspapers do you read? >> i read ten russian newspapers a day. across the spectrum.

and it's true. what ms. applebaum says, that at least three of those ten you hear what she says you hear. but you don't hear them in the other seven. there are at least three that are very pro-european pro-american, very critical of putin. so that's an untruth. what is astonishing for me and the great bonus that i derive from this trip is to learn that oligarchs and states launder money offshore. i had no idea such things happened in the world. all right. we know what's going on in the united states because our justice department is bringing suits against enormous corporations for doing this. would i concede that it's a bigger problem in russia? yes, i would. because of the way this economic system formed in the 1990s. what i would i concede it has to be

reformed? absolutely. would i concede that we have to force russia to do it? absolutely not. because it would be worse. this is for russians to decide, not for us. what's for us to decide is whether we need a partner in russia, whether it's putin or his successor, as a security partner, for us to be safe and i would end with this point. i do not ever recall -- and i've been around a long time, maybe a little longer ever hearing people who ms. applebaum and mr. kasparov represent, speaking like this personally of a soviet communist leader. in fact, when i listen to them, i have to say that there's a kind of repressed nostalgia for+nx] the soviet union and their vendetta against putin's russia. it's way beyond anything we said of communist russia with whom we cooperated for our security. >> when you were giving your first introduction, mr. cohen i wrote down repressed soviet

months talia on my note paper. you know you spoke with nostalgia about the days when the soviet union was still here and could help us regulate the world. this is what you dream of. you have an idea that as in the cold war era, which by the way, i have no nostalgia for. half of europe was enslaved during the cold war. totalitarianism ruled hundreds of millions of people. you know, you have this idea that once again if only the u.s. and russia could work together we could create some idea of stability. this russia is not a country that wants stability. russia is a country that is interested in chaos. it wants -- it created chaos in ukraine. it back -- who are russia's friends? >> let's bring garry into this. some would point to the recent iran deal. russia agreeing to enrich and help iran with its uranium, defusing that conflict. some would point to russia saving obama's proverbial bacon on his red line his squiggly

red line in syria over chemical weapons. how do you respond to those i guess, examples of russian cooperation? >> cooperation means that you can make concessions. and you do something which may hurt you and your interest in order to bolster cooperation with your partner. in both cases, you could see a russian interest. "a," russia has been supplying iran with nuclear technology. and then let's not forget, this uranium goes to russia. russia bill basically hold the key. it enhances putin's position in the international arena. and let's not also forget this negotiation went forever, and putin's interest was always to keep pressure in the region because it helped to also push up oil prices which are vital to putin's financial survival. as for syria, putin's priority from day one was to save a mass murderer named bashar al assad, and he succeeded. there are many other reasons for

him doing that. one is probably some form of dictator brotherhood. and after so many dictators were wush washed away by public anger in the arab world he didn't want to allow assad to be toppled because it always had a negative effect for people in russia because they can see that dictators are also vulnerable. let's not forget putin is always watching for the map of the pipelines. they're very important because that's his grip on europe in demanding that europe could do this and that on supply. potentially, syria is vital for qatar, iraq, syria, turkey, pipeline which could make russian gas redundant. so in both cases putin played the role of a savior and a white knight at the 11th hour but he was the greatest beneficiary. >> i'll let you guys react to that. >> if mr. kasparov is saying that putin stands up for russia's interests, well i guess he does from a certain viewpoint. and his popularity, i read your

interview opposite mine in the newspaper. where you kind of laugh at putin's popularity. you know as well as i do that the people who did the poll are honest people. these are not government sponsored. this is a very respectable organization. that showed that over 80% of the russian people support putin. now, there's got to be a reason for that. these are not stupid people. but again there's propaganda, but these are people who lived a long time. they know what propaganda is. and what they do see in putin and i'm not defending putin, i'm explaining a situation. what they see in putin is a man who has brought russia back. that no longer russians feel that they're second place kind of, that they're really not a great nation that they've been told by others, just get out of our face. and now we're back. and if you don't like us, we don't care. but we're back. thanks to putin. that's the feeling they have. this is something that has to be understood.

good or bad, it is a fact. and there's a reason for it. it's not just because it's an autocratic state. and when my colleague here talks about russian media, he's right. there's a lot of media that says things not at all like what ms. applebaum is saying. you have -- you know very well it says those things. you know very well it says those things. another one which says so so. you have another one which says something else. what i'm saying, it is -- >> give me a break. >> it is about -- >> give me a break. >> we give you -- >> it is about as different as abc, nbc and cbs. about as different. >> any one television station. name one television station. >> it's exactly -- >> name one television station. >> it's exactly the same thing. it's propaganda on both sides. it is.

yes. no. see, but the people -- >> i haven't heard moral equivalence in a long time. >> the people here do not read ukrainian newspapers perhaps they do, but russian, they don't. so they don't know what's happening in russia. >> when was the last time either one of you was in kiev? >> pardon me? >> when were you in kiev the last time? when last time you were in kiev? >> this is funny. i was in kiev two years and some ago to receive the honorary title of man of the year of the ukraine. >> there we go. man of the year of the ukraine. let me bring steven into this. stephen, steven, you want to interject? >> i hope you notice that the chess master just got check mated. did you notice? i did what they're about and i understand this fixation on putin. i really do. personally, i don't care much about putin. because i wish i was going to

live long enough, because i'm an historian. in 20 years to see how historians evaluate putin's role as a leader of russia. and i think it's going to be a big debate. the pluses and the minuses. and i don't know how it's going to come out. and that would be an interesting debate to have here today. let me address your attention to the elephant in the room we haven't mentioned. all them bracing of russia in the 1990s, all this wonderful things we did for them, but weren't we also expanding nato toward their borders? and you say so what? okay, so i come over, i find out where you live and i park all my military equipment across the street. and i say, i'm just here for your security. i'm making sure nobody breaks in your house. and then i notice that you brought a few other folks along, and they've got all their military equipment in my backyard, too. and then you're suddenly in my soft underbelly in the south in georgia. but don't worry this is for your security.

and by the way, nato is about democracy, and you need democracy. all right. let's be serious. we were warned and warned and warned by the russians we liked in russia, the liberals, even, and garry goes sknows this. we're worried about this. and came to washington and said you're pushing too far. eventually -- eventually -- wait a minute. don't use up my time. eventually, rightly or wrongly but perception is everything in politics. the russian political elite decided that this expansion of nato was a way of making sure russia would forever be a subservient state to the west. and that the brass ring -- well, the silver ring was georgia, and there was a proxy war because of this in 2008 but the brass ring has always been ukraine. it's spoken openly.

in washington. now, be honest. if you think this is a good policy if you believe we should push our power as close to russia as we can, bring ukraine into the western security system because it's good for us, then say so and then let's debate that issue. but let's not go on about the demon putin and the rest. because the reality is that the russia understanding of what ukraine is about is what nato expansion has been about from the beginning. and that the ukrainian crisis arose because rightly or wrongly, the russian political class believed that nato was on its way not only to kiev but to crimea. now, we could say it's crazy, but perception is politics is everything. and you want to be safe in this world. you isolate russia. they're going to perceive it as an even more extreme form, and we will never be safe. >> okay let's go to ann on this rebuttal on nato.

>> i'll say it as you invited me, mr. cohen, it's crazy. first of all, mr. number one why did nato expansion happen? let's tick back the clock again to the 1990s. who did it come from? who wanted it? it was the central europeans who wanted it who asked for it. initially it was not an american idea. it was a central european idea. and i remember because i was in warsaw when that happened and when it first came up. why did they -- why did the central europeans want it? they wanted it because they were afraid. they were afraid of russia even then. they saw what russia was becoming. very reluctantly the united states agreed to expand a security zone so that 100 million people would be able to make a transition democracy begin economic development, and growth without fear of invasion, and it worked.

it was unbelievably successful. >> it worked. >> it worked for the central europeans. >> i see. >> yes. 100 million people were safe. you know a region in the source of two world wars has not been a source of conflict since then. how did we do it? it was carried out in a manner designed to reassure russia from the beginning. russia was included in every piece of negotiation. no nato bases were ever placed in the new member states. until 2013 no exercises were ever conducted in the new member states. in response to russian objections, and this is a very important point, both ukraine and georgia were openly and definitively denied nato membership in 2008, and that has been repeated ever since. and it is not on the table now. what are you looking at me like that? >> in 20308, it was stated by the -- >> in 2008 -- >> well, you asked me what i was -- >> there was a nato meeting and they said there will be no

membership plan for ukraine and georgia. since then it hasn't been on the table. >> they said something else in 2008. >> i'm sorry? >> they said something else at that meeting in 2008. >> we seem to remember a different event. >> no, i don't remember it differently. you won't let me finish the sentence so how can i tell you? they said, however however nato membership remains open to georgia and ukraine if they qualify. >> and it remains open to russia as well. it remains open to russia as well. >> oh, please please, please, please, please, please. >> vladimir come in on this. i know this is something you feel strongly about. >> wait, wait and i haven't finished. >> please. >> and what's been happening since then? in this long period of time while russia was rebuilding its military, while it was invading one neighbor after another, the american army was drawing down its european forces so much so that by 2013, there was not one single american tank in europe. this is an aggressive policy. there is no way that putin believed in a genuine military threat from nato. this is something that he has

been using at home as a piece of -- as a way to consolidate his power. >> end with vladimir for this. then i'll come to you. >> the nato discussion in no way consolidates its power at home. in no way p. as far as the people are concerned, it has nothing to do with his power. but nato does have to do with the russian psyche. and perception, as was said, is very important. let me remind you about what happened in 1962. >> '62. >> 1962. >> '62. i wasn't born yet. >> were you around? >> no. >> well if you weren't, in 1962, two independent countries one called the soviet union, the other called cuba, agreed to have soviet missiles placed on cuban soil. reason being, there were american missiles in turkey. and so the soviets decided, it's

a good idea to have our missiles closer to the united states. this was the height of the cold war. two countries have the right to make that kind of decision. when the united states found out that this was happening, it said no. you will not do this. and if we have to sink your ships, we will sink them. and if as a result world war iii happens, it will happen. these are facts. >> yeah. sorry, sorry, mr. posner, one of the things the u.s. negotiated with -- no, you can't. >> well thank you very much. and that's the way they speak to russia. exactly. it's not okay. it is not okay. it is not okay. it's impolite to begin with. and that's not the way you debate. unless maybe it is. i don't know. >> that's how you become man of the year in ukraine. >> so i will repeat, that did not happen. >> under yanukovich. >> rightly or wrongly, the way russia looks at nato it sees it

as a threat. why was nato created? to protect the west, western europe from a possible soviet invasion. there is no more soviet union. there has not been one for over 25 years. the warsaw pact which was kind of the soviet's answer to nato is no longer there. mikhail gorbachev, who i tend to trust, told me three times that james baker, who was then secretary of state, told him if you agree to the unification of germany and taking down the berlin wall, i tell you that nato will not move one inch to the east. now, you may say he's lying, but i don't think he is. i think he's telling the truth. and the thing is that during the soviet period which didn't last very long after that, nato did not move to the east. it moved under clinton.

and when the russians started saying, what's going on here? i mean yeltsin. he was told, no no, we have no agreement with you. we had an agreement with the soviet union. but it's no longer there. you're russia. and so in 1991, poland czechoslovakia, which is still czechoslovakia, became members of nato. and then it was followed later on -- yes, it was. >> i think it was in 1991. you'll find it was later than that. >> it was followed by romania -- >> '98 and 2002. >> well, look. the argument isn't about dates. it's about facts. >> please. >> all right. i may have gotten the date mistaken, but nonetheless -- >> no, it matters. i'm going to explain to you why. >> finally, nato found itself on russia's border. in estonia and in latvia. this is russia's border. now, again you may say but there's nothing dangerous about that.

i am telling you, this is -- there's also a cold war mentality, but nato is seen as a threat. and what the russians have said about ukraine rightly or wrongly, is we will not allow nato to be on our border in the southwest. will not allow as america did not allow the missiles, we will not allow this. you can condone it not condone it. that is the reaction. that's the way it's seen. you perhaps think that nato is not dangerous. fine. >> go, garry. >> a couple of points and one is i heard about russian elite, russian elite, mr. cohen repeatedly said it. there's no russian elite making decisions. there's one man who makes all the decisions. and by the way, this russian elite as a combined entity, knows exactly where to put their kids, their money their fortunes, south london all the way to the west all the way to

miami. so probably in this country as well. so that's why, you know the whole idea of the russian elite you know, being afraid of the west, not true. because they know that they can be saved, you know with their fortunes and their future generations here. and then another myth, of course, which i hear repeatedly. putin is very popular. and whoever, i don't want to argue about the integrity. yes, i agree, i give them full credit. now, what is an opinion poll? somebody calls you and asks what do you think about mr. putin? that's an opinion poll. >> no. >> i'm really proud for my country that 20% of people who say they don't like putin to potential kgb agent who's calling them. and also we're being accused of being, you know, a cold war warriors, you know, warmongering crazies, but we want to live in

the 21st century. what we hear is the 19th or 20th century. i hear america russia, russia, america, sometimes maybe germany. what about countries in between? there are some countries -- and i believe these people have the same rights. >> i agree. >> i was in kiev not two years ago but two weeks ago. >> so? >> and i proudly met this young ukrainian who stood against the corrupt rule of victor yanukovich who was in power two years ago. and i believe it's their right to decide what will happen to their country. the support for membership of nato 18 months ago was merely 16% or 17%. it's quadrupled. guess why? and it's not just, you know, russian and ukrainian war there. i spoke to people who fought in the eastern front of kiev. most of them are ethnic russians.

russians. they are fighting putin's invading armies because they don't want to live in putin's russia. this is the russia i want to see. >> steven and then ann. >> but it's putin again. >> yeah. >> i mean are we going to have a discussion of what's in the best interest of the west? because that really is embedded in the question, isn't it? should we, we engage or isolate russia, or should we have a debate about how we're going to get rid of putin? if you want to have that debate, then for the next month, you know, you can bring in the two points of view. ms. applebaum wrote a wonderful book of history called "gulag." i strongly recommend it, you read it because a master historian's at work there. and as she now knows, now comes

the however. i understand that for one reason or another, she views this whole saga of nato expansion -- >> here we go. >> -- through the perspective of central and eastern europe. i understand that. but the story she told of nato expansion is nowhere written in the histories we now have that resorted to the archives, that have looked at the clinton administration and other things, there was tremendous pressure on the united states on clinton to go back on the word that had been given to gorbachev that nato wouldn't expand. we know the story. the archive recently in foreign affairs, a young woman produced as part of her dissertation an examination of those archives. so the whole history of nato expansion, i mean, that's the kind of fairy tale version, that we did it to protect them from russia which was already menacing them when russia was broken down in the '90s and we

had to save them and we brought democracy along the way. but it isn't the true story. the reality is -- the reality is, there's another debate to be had here. and i'd just drop it, and some of you won't even like the question. does a nation, any nation, have the right to join nato if it technically qualifies for nato membership? it's always said that's so. i disagree. nato is a security organization. it's not the junior chamber of commerce. i don't know if you have that in canada. it's not a nonselective sorority or fraternity. you get in if we like you. it's a security organization. and the only criteria that matters is does it enhance our security or not? and nato has brought the greatest crisis in international affairs since the cuban missile crisis. and a lot of people are rethinking this, and by the way, some of those countries to which

ms. applebaum is so devoted are also rethinking it. read what the czech president says. read what's being said in hungary. read what's being said in the other half of poland. there are a lot of fundamental questions about whether or not this really enhanced the security of europe.4=[ that's a debate. but you don't get a debate with opinion. you get it with facts, and these are the facts. >> paid by lukoil and he was defied openly by his own government. the president of the czech republic. >> i just want to be conscious of our time for this segment and end with the topic that i think is on a lot of people's minds. and you and i spoke about this earlier so i want you to answer this. it's the presence of nuclear weapons in this conversation and the large nuclear arsenal that the -- that russia has. and i'm sure many people would naturally feel a tendency to come over to the accommodation

the compromise camp on the basis that we just can't get this wrong. we can't risk the potential for an escalation that could flow from a policy of isolation, a more assertive stance towards russia. how do you respond to is that? >> i respond -- first, mr. posnor didn't let me correct him. in fact, one of the other elements of nato expansion that was very important was an agreement not to move nuclear missiles an agreement to which the west has kept to. >> that's true. >> you know, this is why the cuban missile crisis analogy is completely wrong. >> it's not wrong at all. it's fear. >> it has nothing to do with it. >> it's fear on both sides fear. >> fear there is. so what is the answer to the question about nuclear weapons? fear and fear of nuclear weapons is very central to this issue. it actually explains why we aren't more enthusiastic about helping ukraine. if ukraine were being invaded by belarus, yeah, we might give

them some radar weapons and not worry about it. why don't we help ukraine? because we're afraid of russia's nuclear arsenal. and we are afraid also, as one of my opponents said we are afraid that this is an irrational country. it might sell nuclear weapons to other people, someone said. we don't know what it might do. it might run off the ranch and do something crazy. what is the way in the past in which we've dealt with a country like that? it's called deterrence. deterrence is not an aggressive policy. it is not an offensive policy. it is defense. the argument is if you bomb us, we will bomb you back. it's very unattractive as a policy, and no one likes it. it's a mutually assured destruction, dr. strangelove, it's a horrible thought. given that this is the only policy we have that we know that works and the only policy that we are capable of using now towards putin's russia, which does not want to be engaged with us anymore which pumps out

propaganda against us in all kinds of different ways in all kinds of countries whether it's, as you say, funding the czech president's election whether it's funding the far right in france. this is a country that doesn't want to be part of our system anymore and has made that very clear. what can we do? we can deter. we can make sure that putin knows that the russian ee jeem -- and it is putin -- and you know the word cronies, by the way, is an important one. what are they? just rich guys who are his friends but somehow they're very powerful. what other word do we have to describe them? you know what we need is to make sure that that group of people knows that we would respond. that's the only thing we can do now. we don't have a better policy than that, and i'm very sorry, and in some ways, you know, one of the great tragedies of my life, i've watched all this happen. i wrote a history of the soviet union. i watched the transition happen and now we're back to exactly the place i would never have wanted us to be. >> not the place.

>> i think we're in a much worse place than we were, quite frankly. because back then, there were two ideologies. >> no, there are two ideologies now. >> there's on ideology. >> no, there is. >> they don't even know what -- you know, what's the future? what is the promise? what are we working for? back in those day, whether it was true or not, it's a different issue. >> the good old days. >> no those were terrible days but there was an ideology. and it was from the start. and the red scare was about ideology. and you know it as well as i do. in this particular case, it's no longer ideology. it's geopolitics. it's whose interests. >> why does this put us in a more dangerous position? >> because it's less predictable. and another thing has happened, which is really interesting. back in the bad old days, there was real fear of nuclear weapons.

children hiding under desks. movies like "the day after." people were aware. today people aren't even talking about nuclear weapons. >> except in poland. >> it's as if they weren't there. but they are. >> oh, they're talking about it in europe. >> so i think it's very dangerous. they're not talking anywhere. >> that is not correct. >> very carefully they're not present the way they used to be. and i think that's a bad thing. >> garry on this point and then i'll give you, steven, the last word. >> i wish nobody would talk about nuclear weapons, but russian television, for the last year, have been talking about it talking and threatening the west. what about the big billboards about turning america into radioactive ash? and vladimir putin publicly -- >> one person saying that, come on. >> that's channel 2, russian television. yes, one person says 100 million watching. >> it's like khrushchev -- you know -- >> and vladimir putin publicly said he would use nukes if the west would stand against him in

crimea. he already said it. >> he did not. he did not. >> no, he said it. >> look -- >> it was a documentary. >> he did not say he would use nukes. he said -- >> he said -- >> pardon me? >> he talked about going on high alert. >> that's correct. >> and the united states has been on high alert a dozen times. >> let's be a little bit more precise here. he did not say that. khrushchev said, we'll bury you. remember that? >> yes. i read it in the books. >> okay. >> and i heard putin. that's the difference. >> so when some idiot says -- >> putin? >> no it wasn't he who said about ash. do you know who said that? >> he keeps talking about russian nuclear arsenal as the argument. >> and it was on television and the guy who said it was was dmetry. and we heard him say that. so it's not putin. if you want to talk about reality, you listen to a rush limbaugh on american television or something like that and you say, look what the americans are saying.

this is a jerk you'll excuse me, saying what he's saying. that doesn't mean -- >> american television. and only one caller in russia. >> and it's not an american policy. it's separate people. and let's make that very clear. >> let's give -- >> on the payroll of kremlin. that's the difference. >> steven, let's give you the final say on this important point of how the threat of nuclear weapons throws into the discussion of isolation versus engagement. >> nuclear weapons. i will take the view that both kasparov and posner are right. talk of nuclear weapons has reemerged. not in the same way that we were conscious of them, but the discussion has reemerged. ms. applebaum wrote a column recently. i don't think she put the head on it, but it was the ethos of

the column which essentially said we should rattle our nuclear weapons. and when people start talking like that and she echoed that column here today, i think we know we're in dangerous territory. i would go even farther in alarm than posnor, and i would say we are in a new cold war by whatever name, and it's potentially more dangerous than the last one. this is where the nuclear weapons come in. for several reasons. because the epicenter of the last cold war was in berlin. this one is in ukraine right on russia's borders. so imagine the possibilities for provocation, mistakes and all the rest. secondly, and this one really worries me. during the last cold war 40 years, the great powers developed a series of rules of conduct, hot phones, hotlines, constant discussion meetings that kept us safe. this is a fact.

i mean this happened over 40 years. there are no rules of conduct yet in this new cold war. and that's why anything can happen. a third reason is there's no opposition to it in the united states. and there was a lot of opposition before. but you will remember that one of the great achievements of reagan and gorbachev was to eliminate -- and the only time a category of nuclear weapons had been eliminated ever, intermediate cruise-range missiles. i think it was 1987, if i'm not mistaken. that was an enormous achievement. it made everybody safer. those missiles don't leave but four or five minutes for alert systems to perceive whether it's a seagal or a missile coming in. and there are a lot of recorded misperceptions on these radar systems. now, both sides not one side, both sides are talking about reintroducing intermediate-range

missiles. the russians are talking about putting them in crimea. and kaleningrad, and the united states is talking about putting them back in western europe. that's how dangerous it is. because my two opponents really hate putin. you want to go there? >> well, we're going to go to closing statements. so let's have garry kasparov up first. garry, you've got three minutes. >> i have to ask you for forgiveness because i want to talk about vladimir putin again. yes, there was a difference in all the bad old days, as he said. there was a polling bureau. even if you have ten of the worst people in the world they can make more balanced decision than one man. and now again for vladimir putin, there's no way out. i mean he should present himself as a strong man who can

protect russia against endless enemies that besieged my country. and i said from the very beginning, so i'm a russian patriot. i want to see my country free and strong. and to play a role, a positive role. i don't want to hear the same jokes as recently have been revived in eastern europe when say, putin entering the country, being asked by customs officer, occupation, says yes, of course. this is not the image of russia i want to project. and it's hard for me to argue for isolation. but this is not isolation of russia. this is isolation of a dictator. the strength of a dictator is like a mafia boss. the ringleader of the old-world facts. and he keeps power not because he's elected. not because, you know he has some you know birth rights as a monarch. but because he protects everybody.

because he's invincible. because nobody can go after him. and as long as he keeps this image of a strong man, he prevails. and every time the free world makes concessions, he's getting more and more arrogant. if he's not stopping ukraine, you move further. he can start you know, provocations in countries to undermine nato because he needs cows. he needs muddy waters. that's the way for him to survive politically. it's all about domestic politics because he has nothing else to offer. no more trump cards but foreign policy expansion. and talking about isolation, and again, we spoke a lot about the cold war and henry kissinger was mentioned. yeah i do remember. i was a kid, but i read the stories, and later actually i learned more about it. in 1974 there was a big debate in the u.s. senate about jackson vanek that was an amendment that put together the free trade with the soviet union and human rights together, bipartisan

support. the administration spoke and he was a great man. the man was my role model, andre saharov who was under harassment ended up in exile who spoke for -- you call it isolation. it's very important that we send this message not to putin. forget him now. it's about his cronies or inner circle or russian bureaucracy or middle class in moscow. they should understand that policies of engagement that enhance dictators with russia will no longer be in place. and the free world will stand behind its values and will think not about putin's russia but the future of my great country. thank you. >> three minutes. >> i was going to begin with a lighthearts remark with saying it would really be fun just to

see kasparov and posner go after each other alone. actually, i was in moscow in early march and i was in kitchens where russians had this conversation and representatives of both sides were there. a big debate goes on in russia. but when kasparov that he thought sokorov was going to be on his side today, i suddenly felt i wouldn't say angry but really disappointed. something should be sacred, and i think that's the name of sokorov. he absolutely would not have supported the isolation of russia under no circumstances. his whole life, everything he wrote, no, garry. the father of the soviet hydrogen bomb derived a lesson from that, and that was we must engage on these issues. you need to go back and read. worshipping somebody without reading them is probably not the way to go. the same thing about putin. i haven't come here -- i am not -- i am not pro-putin. i have no sentimental attachment to putin whatsoever.

he's a subject as an historian to me of study. but i think if you were to read what putin actually says, read his speech when he annexed crimea read what he said when they have driven us in a corner and we have nowhere to retreat to. you say what do you mean? how did we drive you into a corner? he's talking about nato. he's talking about the encroachment on ukraine. you say no we're virtuous, but i come back to this issue. to isolate is to exacerbate those distorted perceptions of us. if you think they're distorted. so let me end by returning to an astonishing thing that ms. applebaum said. she said, and i tried to write it -- i don't do shorthand. putin's russia does not want to be part of our system any longer. i think she said that. that is russia wanted to be, but under putin, it no longer wants to be. it's a strange statement because, first of all, and i promise you this, and you can go

to kremlin.ru in english and read every major speech putin has given. he is on his knees pleading to be part of the west. and lamenting that he's been driven from the west. don't put your hands up, garry. don't do it. i would not come here and lie to you. read this last six or seven large speeches on the ukrainian crisis. read them. but there's one other thing. russia was never part of our system. i said facts, not opinions. the fact is, and ms. applebaum omitted this with this fairy tale about nation expansion, that a nation -- nato -- nato expansion excluded russia from the post-soviet european system of security. russia was excluded. how can they not want to be part of a system they were not made a part of?

>> ladies and gentlemen it's no evening. you have just heard two radically different accounts of contemporary russia. you have heard on one side, russia, it's a little bit difficult. i don't really want to support it. i'm not really pro-putin. but it's the kind of state we need to speak to we need to engage with, we need to talk to them. you know it's very important that we are reasonable with them. so that we can continue to divide up the world the way we once did 25 years ago. on our side, on our side you've heard an argument that this is actually a different kind of nation. this is a nation that thinks differently. this is a nation where the reason we keep talking about putin and his cronies and as i said, we're searching for a word is because this is -- these are owner occupiers.

you know these are not just politicians. they own gas prom. the owners of gas prom are the leaders of the country. they use their businesses. they use their media inside their country inside ukraine inside central europe, and inside all over the west in order to achieve their own ends. and what are their thendends? their ends are to remain in power. everything -- whatever it is that putin does his ultimate goal is stay in power. whether it's build up his nuclear arsenal whether it's carry out military exercises, whether it's -- whether it's you know claiming that, you know malaysian planes were shot down by martians whatever it's going to be, the idea is always about maintaining his power. you know we're forced to talk about him because, you know because he's so -- he's so dominant. what you haven't heard from any of us much tonight and certainly not from our opponents is much about the people who have been the most important victims of

the west's policy of engagement until now. and these are the young and energized ukrainians who stood on the maidan in the cold last year in order to fight putin's corruption and dictatorship. these men and women -- these men and women have in the past 18 months, created new television stations from scratch. they have run for parliament and won on anticorruption tickets. they have set up organizations designed to promote transparency and good government. they may well not succeed. they have an extraordinary obstacles to overcome. they may well not succeed but their goal is to create a more democratic, more fair and less corrupt world in the 21st century, and putin's russia is trying to stop them. i repeat. you know ukraine is not putin's only target. he also wants to undermine our societies, corrupt our politicians, spread conspiracies

inside our media. he hopes to persuade europeans to succumb to the old temptations of the fascist far right. to stop this from happening, to stop him from destroying ukraine, we need to isolate russia in this sense. enforce our own corruption laws disentangle ourselves from the drug of russian money and re-establish the western solidarity which he is trying to destroy. >> mr. posner, the last word. >> thank you. i refuse to play this game of who's nice and who's not. i care about russia. and i would ask you, what are the consequences of isolating russia? well, as i count them, there's a minimum of ten. and all ten are detrimental to the west. first, placed into the hands of

the shoefchauvinists, the dream of bringing down the iron curtain again. second, place it in the hands of anti-western russian orthodox church. third, it reinforces the feeling now shared by 73% of all russians that the west led by the united states, is the enemy. fourth, it turns russia eastward into a partnership with communist china. a partnership that is both dangerous and threatening to the west. fifth, it makes russia ever more unpredictable. sixth, it plays into the hands of russia's military industrial complex. seven, it reinforces the traditional russian desire to circle the wagons and what seems like a hostile environment. eight, it minimizes any and all outside information for the russian people who presently do have access to western media, to western movies, and to the internet. nine, it cuts off travel for all average citizens including

tourism, exchanges educational opportunities, and ten, it leads to the birth of a generation of russians hostile to the west. what are the consequences of engaging russia? by engaging russia, and by this i mean opening its doors to as many russians as is physically possible easing visa restrictions or waiving them altogether altogether, allowing russians to visit, to work to send their children to schools and universities to develop human contacts. the west by that will achieve a profound change in people's mindset. this will fundamentally change the country its politics and its policies. it will not happen overnight, but it will inevitably happen. and this beyond a question of the doubt, will be a huge positive for the west. and by the same token, for russia and to the russian people, and finally, i'd like to say that if, as ms. applebaum

once wrote in this magazine, the russian president dreams of sitting down a new iron curtain, this is her article well, then isolating russia is playing right into mr. putin's hands. thank you very much. >> ladies and gentlemen, we've been treated to a superb hour and a half debate. i want to thank on behalf of the entire audience our debaters tonight. bravo. great job. and again thank you to the auria foundation for making this all possible. this is the type of informed conversation, regardless of what side of this issue you stand on that i think we all benefit from. so thank you, peter and melanie, the oria foundation for making

tonight possible. bravo. so let's review where public opinion in this hall was at at the beginning of tonight's debate when we asked you to vote on the resolution, agree/disagree on be it resolved the west should engage and not isolate russia. get that up now. try to do it from memory. i think it was 43% -- >> 53 -- 53, i think engage. >> 57/43. >> there we are. 54% agree. 46% disagree. so very close. and then we asked, how many of you would be open to changing your mind? we saw a big number there. in terms of people's views being in play. 89%. so this debate is very much up for grabs now. all of you have a second ballot

in your program. please use that to vote on the way out of the hall. we're going to have the results for you in the reception. a little bit after 9:00 p.m. and again, thank you all, all 3,000 of you, for turning out for tonight's debate. let's go vote! the senate begins debate tomorrow morning on the nomination of loretta lynch to be the next attorney general. a procedural vote expected to take place an hour after the senate convenes and then a confirmation vote on the nominee could take place in the afternoon. if there's agreement to limit debate time. our live coverage of the u.s. senate is always on c-span2 and we'll cover the loretta lynch story for you tomorrow on c-span2 as well. going to take you live now to capitol hill. the senate finance committee. meeting this morning to mock up legislation that would relate to trade measures including

fast-track trade promotion authority that would give the president broad authority when negotiating trade agreements and require congress to consider treaties with an up or down vote without amending them. other draft bills include extending the trade adjustment assistance program. that provides federal job training to workers adversely impacted by foreign trade. and extending trade preferences to sub-saharan african countries. also a bill to reauthorize an oversee trade activities including those of the u.s. customs and border protection agency. senator orrin hatch is the chairman of this committee. he's in the chair. also ron wyden from oregon, the ranking member. we expect this hearing to get under way momentarily. we see senator hatch. also a couple of amendment votes right now in the senate a couple of minutes from now as the senate works today on the anti-human trafficking bill. so that could impact this markup. the house today working on the

first of a couple of cybersecurity bills. today's bill would provide liability protection to companies that share cyber threat information with the government and with other companies. our coverage of the house always on c-span. the senate on c-span2. and we have this markup hearing for you here live into the afternoon, we're told, here on c-span3.

>> let's have order. the committee will come to order. the committee is meeting today to consider four trade bills. the first is an original bill

relating to the trade adjustment assistance program and the health care tax credit. the second is the original bill relating to the african growth opportunity act and other opportunity act and other trade preference programs. the third is an original bill relating to customs and enforcement. and the fourth is s995, the bipartisan trade and accountability ability. all of these bills have been agreed to after long and difficult negotiations between myself, our ranking member senator wyden, and also agreed to by the ways and means committee chairman senator chairman ryan. they're all supported by the administration which is kind of amazing when you stop and think of it. the bill is to appoint these four measures as second bills. once we do that, i plan to make

sure all four are enacted into law. as we discussed previously, i'll particularly work with our ranking member to see that tee and taa move on parallel tracks. i'll now recognize senatorvú$w for any points he wants to make at this point. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i do have a brief opening statement but i thought it would be helpful for you and i have to have a brief colloquy. you have the importance of enacting all of these bills into law. each one of them is important. although i've deferred to the chairman's budget about the best procedural approach it's important that all four of these bills be enacted into law. in particular, tpa and taa originated back in the 1950s as an ineffective fact whereby each

reinforces the other. for its particularly important that they travel on parallel tracks so that both will be enacted simultaneously. i'll work with the chair and leaders to make sure that happens. let me give you the opportunity to responsibility to the colloquy, mr. chairman and then i'll have a brief opening statement. >> all right. thank you, i think i'll make an opening statement at this time. >> yes. okay. >> today's law encompasses an important step in a multiyear long effort to enhance american trade. each of the bills before us today have been in the works for some time. and eve of them are the product of bipartisan compromise and cooperation. i want to start by restating what i said in our hearing last week. u.s. trade with foreign countries is a good thing. that's a pretty simple statement, one that's hard to disagree with. yet while i don't think that

many mr. quibble with that premise there's a guide point of views as to how we should go about facilitating trade. i think many of those views will be discussed today. indeed i think we'll have a spirited debate on these issues and i'm personally looking forward to it. my personal view is that we need do all we can to tear down barriers while when he same time enforcing rules to our trading partners so we have assure that american workers and jobs are competing or a fair and level playing field. i'd like to take just a few seconds to talk about each of them. the first bill will be considered the new trade add just assistance or taa. this legislation represents a grow myself between senator wyden and house and mays and weans chairman paul ryan. i'm not in favor of taa while i plan to vote against this legislation, i'm glad we have

the opportunity to debate the program on its merits. and i suspect that it will go through. next, we'll consider a bill that will reauthorize and improve three of our trade preference programs. the general systems preference or gsp. the african growth and opportunity act or agoa, and tariff preferences for haiti. these are to improve our negotiation with the beneficiary countries by encouraging development, diversifying developments and creating jobs. at the same time relying on the tariff productions provided under the program, i'd like to thank senator isakson who has been a leader for years on the african growth and opportunity act. we're very grateful for his work on this we're going to appoint agoa today. the preference bill represents an agreement reached by senator

wyden, chairman ryan, representative samuel levin an myself. after considering both taa and the preference bill, we'll move to legislation designed to strengthen enforcement and improve the trade facilitation work of customs and border agency. the trade enforcement act of 2015 puts in place the right tools to keep counterfeit products that threaten the american innovation and safety of the american people. the bill also helps bolster american exports by assuring that other countries apply with u.s. trade law us. this is another bipartisan bill that will help advance america's agenda and create better jobs in a stronger economy at home. finally, after we've debated and voted these three bills and move to the consideration of the bipartisan trade priorities and accountability act it will go to the new trade promotion authority.

now, this legislation represents a bipartisan bicamara role and assert congress' role in crafting u.s. trade policy. it was introduced by senator wyden and myself here in the senate and chairman ryan in the house. this is clearly an historic bill. containing clearest articulation of the bill. it includes almost 150 ambitious high-standard negotiating objectives that will direct our trade negotiators to break down barriers that american exporters face in the 21st economy. the bill also contains unprecedented requirements that will enhance congress' role out there the trade process. i will like to commend senator crapo on his leadership. one of the important changes to the new bill will assure the public greater access to agreements well before they're assigned. this provision should help us

restore the public process in and senator crapo has been influential in helping us get there. the procedures in our bill guarantee that all trade agreements will get an up or down vote in congress. at the same time we've included new tools to hold the administration accountably, whatever administration it may be including a procedure that congress can employ if our trade negotiators fail to consult or make progress towards meeting objectives. this is a good bill. one that i think members of both parties can support. at the end of the day i think we'll see a strong bipartisan vote in favor of our tpa legislation. i have more to say on tpa and on all of today's agenda as the meeting rolls on. for now, i just want to once again thank my colleagues for the help on these issues and in particular senator wyden. i'd like to thank senator wyden for working with me on all the bills, it's taken us a while to get here.

i'd also like to thank senator portman for his assistance on trade issues. he's an expert on trade. and his advice and counsel have been vital to our efforts. he's been a trade ambassador in the past and we rely rather heavily on him. his leadership on taa and hptc has been helpful, the strongest language yet on enforcement and much of that has been due to senator toomey's work. senator toomey has been instrumental on digital trade. we've been able to incorporate a lot of his ideas. and senator grassley has provided invaluable advice on agricultural issues. thanks, chuck, for your help. with that, i'd like to say it's a good day for the senate finance committee but it's not time to celebrate yet. we still got a lot of work to do

and i'm eager to get started. i'd now like to recognize senator wyden for any markingsremark remarks he'd like to make. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i want to say to my democratic colleague that i could go down right down the road and single out each of one of them and we would be here until breakfast time. i want to make a few points before we get off to this discussion. over the next decade and a half the global middle class is going to balloon by more than 2 billion people. and they are going to be spending an awful lot of money. they're going to buy computers they're going to buy cars, they're going to buy medical products agricultural goods, engineering services and more. the reason i think this is such a crucial topic is i want those billions of people to buy those

products that are designed and built by oregonian and american workers and get those workers high-skill, high-wage jobs in a tough global economy. if we're going to do that it is going to take a fresh trade policy. the president put it very well in the state of the union when he said and i quote here, past trade deals have not always lived up to the hype. in my view the 1990s playbook on trade have to go. our trade policies in 2015 have got to work better for america's middle class. and that's why i have been working with so many of you on with respect to the bills that we're going to deal with today. so here's what's going to change with this package. our country is going to aim higher in trade agreements. our trade enforcement will be much tougher. and the process of negotiating and voting on agreements will be more transparent. it will be