retired marine corps general. >> this is funded by a great. [applause]

>> hello and welcome to the national press club and to another edition of the calvert report. are subject to my, pretense trump card. ever since donald trump arrived on the national and global seen a few short years ago his dealings with vladimir putin with russia have fascinated and on occasion right people everywhere. was it really up romance as it was put early on? or did putin have something on trump? why did he intervene in the presidential elections? was trump naïve about putin and his sharp elbow policies? what was going on? in the absence of clear answers

relations soured badly. talk of a new cold war. just the other day in syria there's been displays of equipment. so again i ask what's going on. i was stumbled panel of four inform people to help us come up with an answer. i'll give them the better part of an hour to do so. to my right, only in geographic designation. john allen, now president of the book trim brookings institution. who is commander of the 150,000 troops in the afghan war from 2011 until 2013. he served as a special

presidential -- in the middle east in the fight against isis. to my left, leon aaron was director of russian study at the american enterprise institute. born in moscow he came to the u.s. in 1970 earned his phd and has become one of washington's top specialist. to my right very louise kelly who is cohost of all things considered. the mpr award-winning newsmagazine. she wants work for cnn and the bbc and is just back from moscow where she reported on putin's recent flirtation into my left peter baker who is the chief white house correspondent for the new york times covering president trump.

he also covered obama, bush, and clinton. here's the moscow bureau chief worked at the post for 20 years. so dear panelists, tell us what's going on. are we really in the depths of a new cold war? or can something happen that could turn it around and open the way to a more civil conversation? >> thank you for the opportunity to join you this evening. it's great to be with so many members and being a marine for so many years i never thought i'd find myself in a position where i'm thinking the media for your service. well done to you. we all hope in some form we can

find some, purpose with any potential adversary. i am a standing measure we find that we in russia are at a moment of crisis and confrontation. we have to look for ways to have a conversation the fines, purpose and potential common interests. that will be difficult. >> but you accept the idea being in a new cold war. >> the level of confrontation we have is exceptional in the aftermath of the cold war. we are headed toward the level of confrontation that has the potential for even a military confrontation. >> overall russia's foreign minister was interviewed on bbc

this morning-the same question. he said relations have never been worse. he explicitly included the cold war. i don't find the cold war framed that useful, in the sense that it refer to a binary world. were in such a different place. it's not really where we are. also if you think about -- i was in the room where john mclachlan got asked about it and he said the cold war ended the soviet union went away. rush is not going to go away or disappear. where does it end? so you can clearly argue if they

were better worse, thereby. but the cold war, not sure. >> what's your view? >> think we use a new phrase to loosely but mainly it's to emphasize that were back into adversarial posture we hope to get away from. for ten or 15 years we were away from it. for the most part in the past we believed we are friends and partners. the beginning of the bush administration that my dip in the case. putin reached out and accepted that there is a convergence of interests. since 2003 with the iraq war and putin's increasing consolidation power were going different directions. i don't know that's the fault of any individual actor but were on

opposite sides of the struggle. putin is a soviet not a communist. hoping to export ideology around the world. he's hoping to make america great again and if that means putting ukraine in its place are popping up bashar al-assad, he's going to do that. >> what can be done to turn it around? >> situation reminds me of the old soviet joke where who's the soviet -- when they say things will who's the soviet pessimist and who's the optimists who says things are so bad they cannot possibly get worse. i think we've reached the point of soviet optimists.

the problem is to me, maybe because i look at it from the russian side is that sometime probably around 2012 going into is there presidency, putin made the choice of his political career. he shifted the basis of the legitimacy of his regime the only thing about his regime is the personal popularity. so before it was a very significant growth of income to what i call patriotic -- some russians call it militarized patriotism. she's working at the bleak economic situation lisandro takes three forms. he cannot undertake or stop corruption without endangering

his regime. so he shifted the basis of his regime to legitimacy from the wealth manager to the defender of the country, the restorer of the glory of the soviet union. because he's a soviet patriot. far more than he's a russian patriot. >> what is it mean in terms of the relationship with the u.s.? what is his endgame and what does he want. >> this is a very bad situation because so long as he depends on confrontation with the united states his speech on march 1 the state of russia dressed in my mind was the most militaristic and chauvinistic speech by any

soviet russian leaders installer. if the 1949 or 1950. so long as he bases his popularity and being the defender of the country, the -- of the hated west, i think it's very difficult for us to do anything about it. >> where would you put us, at a stage where the idea of improvement in relationship is so far removed that we have to deal with this negativity all the time but there's a way you can imagine those relationship still turning around moving in a positive direction? >> i was struck by something this morning i read in the times are lame to quoted here.

it is angela who was a professor at georgetown longtime intelligence officer. she was quoted as talking about u.s. russia relations and same challenges that the u.s. has three different russia policies. president trumps policy, vision of russia and where he would like this relationship to go, his administration's policy which differs and expressed interviews and there's where congress has waited and where lawmakers appear to be. they don't operate in tandem

which is perhaps a strategic loss of your think and keep them put in office guard is a good way to go. clearly there is areas of improvement. as i was getting trust i was thinking it was a shame it wasn't last week because today will be focused on syria. and then last 24 hours we have seen the u.s. accusing international inspectors for steering this way from reports that russia perhaps may have meddled with the chemical site that inspectors are trying to get to. there accusing rush of massive cyber intrusions. that's coming out today. not entirely clear whether the u.s. is about to impose new

sanctions on russia depends on if here listening to nikki haley at the white house. it can go anywhere but up. >> from your perspective is you're looking at the problem now, what is the greatest strategic challenge for the united states at this point? >> there's several. one thing the russians have done quite well is to create a modern capability of conducting operations in all of the six domains. on the ground, sea, air, and the cyber domain in space. they've mastered the capability of conducting operations in the gray zone which can accomplish

their objectives but are not so provocative anyone of them that it breaks the threshold for nato or un reaction. they've mastered that. from my perspective the great strategic confrontation is that they have meddled in the internal affairs with the united states and our electoral process to the detriment of our institutions. it's difficult to defend against that. in the end, the 2016 election is characterized by level of interference far beyond simple cyber operations they had dramatic potential impact on that election and continues to this day.

not only do we not know the full extent of the intrusion of the russian cyber influence. it's cost important outcome for putin which is a crisis of confidence in democratic societies and their electoral processes and their systems of truth. compromise people's ability to trust their government, truth. it's a strategic outcome. >> do you think that was his endgame? do you think that's what he started having in his mind? >> i think you started with the idea of disruption. more to the idea of revenge at hillary clinton whom he did not like then once they recognize there is an opportunity morphed

again and to support an overt way for another candidate to they think they're actually going to look electro? probably not. they saw what we saw. but they did move from and generalize that's messed things up and out their own system and without debate we see this in an e-mail sent to donald trump junior we would like to meet with this woman over receiving incriminating and foreign's regarding the support of the russian government for president trump.

i don't think they understood what was happened were they got what they wanted out of it. >> now that was called collusion. that word was used. >> i've heard you talk eloquently against the idea that there was collusion in 2016 between the trump campaign a russian government. please explain the. >> there may have been one, we should check and wait for the reports, again, i have zero knowledge think they really need my expertise republican or democratic. but from the russian side i do know a few things. the first thing i would say is no responsible russian intelligence officer would expose a truly valuable asset by

connecting until october it was out of the realm of possibility that trump would win. and besides, this was a campaign that was so disorderly and chaotic that you would thought twice or three times before getting involved. anybody he's been to moscow, i was a lowly foreign policy advisor to governor romney. and even i got phone calls like this. let's meet and we will you get the air of -- all the way to the president. these are from what i have seen are -- and hustlers. and so far i've not seen anything better than that.

what happened is that this pressure to please that however you can do it maybe you could come up with something to say on the it was anti- hillary. once i got the calls you don't send the research assistant descended on paid enter saying she's comes back and says it's a waste of time. so you have this immense pressure and absolutely bad judgment on behalf of the trump campaign. >> and the russians are capable of being the foolish and going with third-grade people and screwing it up. so it is possible you can have

collusion and lousy and effective. >> absolutely. >> it is possible. it's easy to have collusion with people who know what they're doing than the other way around. >> mary louise, your recently in moscow. i remember years ago most of the time the russian people were very friendly towards americans. even the russian government that say nice things about the united states every known them. what is it like there today? i hear it's harsh and tough. >> we did not have a lot of love and welcoming opening norms. in terms of people talking to

commits a surprise every time i go. i show up with my microphone and interpreter and what does anybody have to gain from speaking with me. but at least here they know what npr is and hopefully there's some trust that will try to be objective. what you russians have to gain by speaking to me? the polls open at 8:00 a.m. and i knew it was going to be a long day say someone to get up early and go to the gym and workout. the newscast called and said i thought let's just put eyeballs on the before i tell you that. there is a poll on the same

block as the hotel so i got off the treadmill and i'm sweaty and disgusting and haven't had coffee. i just want to see that the doors are open and people are going into the polls. i don't have my interpreter with me. i don't speak russian. you have to have multiple documents. i have nothing on me other than my room key. i show up and just trying to look around and see people are coming and going in these two big security guys with their guns a full body armor, that man come chasing at me and yelling at russia. i probably crossed a line that i didn't know i was there. and i have nothing.

eventually with a lot of sign language in my kitchen russian and a kind russian they were and they can tell on the clueless journalist and can't find my way to the pole. they're there to show me an escort man. they want to show me how everybody's ideas being checked. they're offering me coffee and the big thing is there trying to make it a fair carnival atmosphere. it's a fun thing to do putin wants turnout. so they're serving coffee and smoke fish outside i go back and report this on npr. but i thought as a western journalists you have access and people are leaving the polls into a fall most everybody who i

stopped and stuck a microphone in the face. and tell me who they voted for and why. you never quite know if they're being monitored as a journalist. >> it is true in the last 15 or 20 years russians are more willing to deal with foreigners now than they ever have been. you're at a time when food was trying to make a point. exactly. one other point is when i was there with protest and watching security guards club protesters and drake them off. i stood there witnessing it looking around there no russian journalists there. there banned from covering it. so you if you are russian and didn't follow english media you

would have never about it and how is plana. >> want to identify ourselves to the many national and global websites that are carrying this addition. i'm marvin kalb and discussing the front nature of u.s. russian relations with john allen, peter baker, mary louise and . my next question is for the two panels were not journalists. what stories to keep reading about in your mind are really important about the nature of the relationship that are not being reported either properly or adequately?

>> i think i see it touched on in some of the stories, i think the inherent vulnerability of the western democracies to digital intrusion and massive influence operations deserves more coverage. we have seen the outcome of the migration out of the middle east which has in many respects created a moment of polarization in the politics of europe which i believe were accelerated and enabled by this influence campaign which appealed through the internet digital media voice we haven't seen. over looking at now is a traditional concept of sovereignty.

line on the ground which encloses terrain in people and resources, ultimately to have a self identity which is turned on its head today. the capacity of the russians or the chinese or an opponent to completely neutralize the traditional concepts of sovereignty at additional level and come into this consciousness regardless of what the government would want to have happen. it has turned west concepts of sovereignty on its head. if this is warfare of the future or influence of the future, how does the traditional concept defend itself.

>> thank you. leon, what is not covered accurate adequately? >> it's being test upon all the time but maybe not all the dots are connected. it's a peculiar nation of putin. i'm not sure i think it's even less predictable than the cold war. the reason is because he based his legitimacy on foreign policy in confrontation with the west and once you unsettle that tiger it's difficult to get off and it requires more and more meat. it's not a new problem. looking somewhere towards the end of henry the fourth the

dying henry tells the future henry the fifth that the start to occupy minds with -- quarrels. something putin is doing, i have a poster which is seen like to show, and said classic 1949 soviet cold war poster. russian soldier lecturing uncle sam. the soldiers handsome and confident a very broad chest. the golden star of the hero of the soviet union. in his hand quite easy to read is the history of world war ii.

the implication being the enemy is different but the outcome is the same. uncle sam holds the nuclear bomb and the torch to set the world on fire if the russian soldier allows him. the caption could be his don't you fool around. this is is a sensibility that putin instilled in russia successfully. the loathing and the fear and also the pride. this is a very dangerous route to take. >> my next question is that i've been told by many colleagues how difficult it is to present cover president trump. he simply dominates everything in the environment and you can get caught up on any day covering the story he presents to you.

so what is the story you would like to cover but don't have the time to do that right now. >> is hard to imagine. he is a remarkable force of nature when it comes to new generation. it's my fourth president wake up in the morning have some sense of what the day will bring. the storylines could be. now i have no clue what were writing about. so in that environment to escape that for texan focus on something of our own ambition. it's a challenge. we met the challenge by

increasing our staff have six people cover the white house full-time. when i started it was to people. hundred seven in our washington bureau. a full-time team that does nothing but investigate the russian stuff away try to peel up people so they can get off of that vortex for a while. as far as like to do like to understand the national security team reconstituted mike pompeo i'd like to understand better who's running things. nikki haley putting new sanctions on russia on monday and today, no or not. >> nikki haley slapping the sanctions on trump say no or not. nobody seems to quite know.

speaks to a challenge of a reporter who got a whiff of a story got to the point where you are covering national security be ready to take it to the cia for comment they would not confirm it on the record but you make it some kind of stair and that meant something. now, could you go to and you could get the president's national security advisor there president confirming your story and six hours later have the rug pulled out from under you. >> in other words the idea of two sources before he got the story, forget that. >> to peter's point about the craziness of the new cycle.

we used to scale down the staffing on the weekends. we are fully staffed but less news on the weekend. that's no change all things considered were to our show but it staggered see get the latest news on the east coast and west coast. heist to go home at 630 or seven. as of last week the schedules that were staff fully until 10:00 o'clock every night. take friday night lamenting cutter because we're launching airstrikes on syria and that's our congressional correspondent tweeted out a picture and all

the mics split up at 1030 in the cap shows typical friday night in the trump era prior were in the studio and don't know what were doing. >> in this era of fake news, that concept of president trump when you look at the presidency of covered strength the wiki is? >> it's funny to say yes because i spent all day today -- as i can't get anybody to talk. it's not dynamic where we know more some ways we not have the discipline of a bush white

house. we don't have the discipline of the obama white house which was fairly disciplined. having said that it's not responsive when you're trying to get them on the phone. have some reporters they deal with more frequently than others. the promises you make a source on that fear their out. any have to start all over again. in some ways is the leak use white house but also the least responsive. >> this world of the fake news an alternative fact, how does that affect the ability of a four-star marine general to do his work? are you isolated from that world are affected by that world, and

if so how. >> from the spokesperson, sarah once said that were not in the business of questioning four-star generals. this extraordinary challenge for organizations. when you find yourself an environment where there's alternative faxon people point to the fact says the genuine basis for opinions used to say can have real opinion but you can have your own facts. we have fake news an alternative facts and it's been really a challenge for think tanks. from my perspective or

obligation first of all our role has never been more important to the american public and producing quality research that's as accurate as we can make it to give the american people a basis for place to go and do find the closest thing to truth that we have that obligation to the people of the united states into the administration. one of the models that we brought is that will help the president govern in the congress legislate. it's not unrelenting commitment to quality and truth. and provide that to the policymakers and the american people. an environment were even in the

white house there's an unrelenting stream of falsehoods coming out it's difficult to compete against that. the challenge is to be that basis for unqualified truth upon which the american people can judge their own positions policymakers and regulators can base quality policy development. >> the president has referred to the process the enemies of the american people. in your judgment do you think you serious or is it just for show? >> i have no idea. >> without stretching too far last few times i've reported from russia i was struck

thinking you look at washington and moscow, both places where the leaders attacking the press. both are places for the president either jails his political enemies or threatens to. both were the legislative branch can't or won't exert a check on executive power. that said, i was in moscow when jim comey did his headline testimony last june after he had been fired in the first time she spoke publicly. it is surreal to send moscow watch the former fbi director criticize the sitting president thinking that would've never

happened in russia. he would've been hauled off to jail. they're still real and important deep structural differences. >> you're there but at the white house and that linus or not you. what was in his mind? was he serious about it? >> like the felipe hurt times when he say that your time is doing great i hope we keep failing play were feeling. >> what a few pulitzers today including our russia coverage. stock prices out.

>> people ask, so far there hasn't been a lot of bite. the bark is sentence significant. it's meaningful. it cuts away at our credibility which is the intent. to treatise as a political actor shouldn't be believed because that's in the interest of the president. >> they want to discredit what we report so he can tell his supporters it's not true and you complete me. he has successfully bypass the media with a twitter account that every president before him would have loved to be able to do. he's the first one to have the capacity and willingness to bypass the media.

on the day in and day out basis, it sounds more bark than bite. text that going after nbc but he hasn't on that. he talks about throwing us out of the west wing but he hasn't. after the first few months there's tension with sean spicer answer sanders have called things to and we have more or less regular briefings and adversarial but polite back and forth's. my daily life has not changed in a significant way. where i worry is one that translate into the impact to do our job. the tangible impact as retaliation against organizations. i don't worry about the name-calling. will be at a rally and they'll turn around and shout and scream and that's not pleasant but it is what it is. then her get on the plane and say everybody have a good time?

is like also you kinda gave it to us. some of it is real he has deep grievances about the media. it's also a good show. think it's both. >> when he think about putin and measure him up against peter the great, nicholas the first, stalin, is he in the long-term tradition of russian historical leaders or to see represent something new that we have to be super concerned about? >> i think it's a significant deviation of that line. >> if you remember the three categories of legitimacy. either traditional or legal which is democratic or charismatic.

i think putin wants to be a charismatic leader. they dabble and catherine the great grabbed half of poland from the turks and we expand that's fine. but they had legitimacy by virtue of being czars or emperors. putin did not have that legitimacy. he gained it because in the first eight years of his rule plus sees the russian soviet capacity. our common friend fortunately

the real opposition leader who putin really was afraid of is once on the panel and asked how long do you think putin would have lasted if the oil price during his rule was the same under yelton and he answered the question set on the third day be carried out of the kremlin on pitchforks. so when the economy is down and the oil is not likely to go much higher than it is today, probably lawyer lower you base your legitimacy on confrontation with the west. >> e-mails this questionable view that flows out of what leon was talking about. if i were to ask you to consider the state of u.s. russian relation five or ten years into the future, will we be dealing

essentially with the same strategic problems and challenges? will be different will have to figure out how to deal with the new russia rather than one that's a little older. >> that follows for set a few minutes. we will have to deal with the russia that has mastered the capacity and context of influence operations to have interfered in the internal affairs. i spent time in central europe and the balkans. seen them under direct assault by the various mechanisms of influence i worry about the state of democracy in europe. >> what specifically about the middle east, was still be the

same big power confrontation for influence, one side of the other side up? will be the same. >> the middle east apart from the fact that the russians are deeply involved there seems to be a strategic standoff, the middle east has massive structural flaws manifesting themselves now who been exacerbated by the presence of strategic competitors in the region. i don't think the middle east would be dramatically different. we'll probably still be fighting in syria. the question becomes will the united states under president trump have reasserted our presence which most are desperate for.

and it's largely a policy of departure. the structural flaws that manifested themselves swept across the region in ways that will take years to recover from. i don't think the middle east will be dramatically different. it may have been changed in some respects by great power and competition but the feelings will still continue. >> do you think in the next five or ten years there could be a war between the two? >> i worry more about a cyber confrontation that a physical military confrontation. we could see that escalate into something. we saw her recently a report saying the state actors had tried to penetrate the power

grid and show that they could do it. i think they're trying to send us a message. that's what i would worry most about. >> putin is there forever. he is a wartime president. >> no one is there forever he's a healthy 66-year-old, he swims for two hours per were before work all his ministers and he also plays hockey discourse most of the goals. >> i believe that his team also usually wins. >> is very healthy and occasional botox in the face. he stepped on that escalator and he's not stepping off.

and that tiger he settled requires a lot of meat. my greatest concern in his -- on nato. >> let me switch on ask about right now if you had opportunity and power to take one stop the relationship between the two countries, but would that be? >> that's challenging question for non- policymaker. >> you speak to the point that i was going to make which is that the big question that everybody in russia was talking about. it's not where will be in five

or ten years comments were will be in six. 's 2024. what happened to six years would be is constitutionally prohibited from standing again. does he create a new iran style supreme leader role? all these two personalities are meeting these two countries it's on predictable and predictable as one. >> what would you recommend no? >> i am at a loss. essentially it is up to the russian people to decide that fate. >> that means there's nothing we can do? >> nothing we can do substantially.

we should go back and try to contain this russia is much as we can without coming to blows. >> peter, what you think? trying to search for a positive event to all of this. >> are we really at this point. >> i remember -- is in opposition leader was asked said his democracy dead and russian i think we pose the question is like an old russian anecdote. said imagine an ambulance headed down the highway and you hear the driver say i'm heading to the mark so heads up, i'm not dead i'm not dead yet and they said i'm not that yet.

[laughter] >> i have difficulty finding one. >> i went through in my one step. because i've been going in and out of the country since the mid- 50s. i remember in the worst times of the cold war that it was an active cultural and student exchange program. time and again first-rate american artist would be performing in the soviet union and the russian people loved. so my one step right now would be in the midst of all the negativity if we could somehow persuade president trump to launch new cultural and student exchange program.

have people going back and forth. i think that would be a great step towards proving to the russians that the americans don't have horns that russians are not really bears. but now i need to begin to wrap up. . . peter baker and leon aron thank you for taking the time to be with us after sharing your insights on the question of supreme importance right now to this country and to the rest of the world. that is it. as was said many many years ago, and good night and good luck. [applause]

[applause] we have microphones here and there, so if you'd like to ask a question come up to the microphone, give us your name, your association and ask a question and i asked that because if you make a speech i will probably cut you off. so ask your question. please go ahead. >> are we still on the air? >> ann michael member of the press club in a long time ago i was--my question is in your introduction you talked about the other half when you are

talking about what russia should do as a nation about the connection between trump and putin and i didn't hear anybody discuss that issue. i'd be interested in all of your thoughts and what do you think there is something there. >> in the sense of this collusion and collaboration or whatever? i raised that issue early on about whether it is possible that putin has something on trump and trump tried to sort of fight off hard-line aides and still maintain a relationship with the russians. he has said any number of times, there's nothing wrong with having a good relation with russia. so what do you think? how would you answer that? >> it's not unusual for the presence of say hey we need a

better relationship with russia. i'm going to forge a friendship with the russian counterpart. president clinton came in and did that in president bush came in did that with putin and president obama did that. that's not unusual. what is unusual is having an american president seemingly--or say things at the same time the russian president is seemingly responsible for so many provocations that have challenged our troops here at home and abroad and to hear him say bill o'reilly for instance well we are all killers or a call after the sham of an election and told do not congratulate any congratulates and said hey why do you come to the white house? on the day of sanctions, it's a disconnect between the events happening in this environment which is taking place and a refusal on his part for the last

couple of weeks to say one critical thing about vladimir putin. it raises the question why and that's why people come up with this there must be something we don't know. >> the other factor i would lay her on is the other unusual thing is an unusual number of contacts between the trump campaign and russian officials. it's not unusual for an administration trying to figure out what sort of foreign-policy ones to forge to reach out to have contacts and to have lunch but this is an unusual level that i haven't seen covering washington in 15 or 20 years. is there a smoking gun? the interesting aspects of the mall or investigations such as we know there are couple of tracks.

there is the collusion track and so far at least publicly there has been nothing weighed out that indicates to define collusion as a willful cooperation with russia to try to sway the outcome of the elections by donald trump. we haven't seen it. which makes the obstruction of justice investigation almost more interesting at this stage. if it's just a collusion investigation of probably would have been wrapped up by now. so steps taken since president trump came to office which are now-- [inaudible] >> john allen? >> i couldn't do any better. these are very good answers. >> yes, please. >> my name is jim moran. i like the panel to address

russia in logic concepts of the spread of authoritarianism whether china, turkey hungary whatever. candidates to the right would get three times the level of populace so while we focused on putin i'd like you to focus on what seems to be the trend in terms of world politics and the trend towards authoritarianism. >> just to piggyback on that i'd like to have your opinion on this but we find this populism is popular in places like the philippines and egypt and hungary and appears to be spreading in western europe. what is your take on that? >> this is an excellent question let's start with the two countries. we know that--admires putin and

xi jinping is also wartime president. wartime presidents don't quit when they need wars and this is my concern with putin. there are two other countries in addition to russia with long complicated often tragic histories and they are china and turkey. in both of those places as in russia the people's expectations are increasingly at odds with the economic reality. in almost the same terms they are saviors of the nation. they are realized there's of the national dream and that is a shift. it is clearly a trend. i think it's different from what's happening in western europe or even in hungary because there is a symbol of

legitimacy in western europe they so far of not one and the elections and of course the czech republic and hungary the populace did when but i forgot the name of the czech president say we are the saviors of the nation. we should grab a piece of the neighboring nation which would show the united states where is in the case of turkey, china and russia, very large military on which you could build this narrative. that is the case and this is a very troubling trend. >> can i jump in? one of the things we need keep close mind of is the civilian leadership in democracy is by definition govern. they don't rule. what you need to keep in mind and will we all need to watch

very carefully is as we see the polarization of politics and the rise of populism we are beginning to see these leaders trending towards seeking to rule rather than to govern. looks like the attack on the media and for vilification of the opposition and it looks like the weaponization of regulatory institutions the wielding of law enforcement, the entities through investigative processes and ultimately the issuance of indictments etc.. these are very disturbing trends democracy when the leaders of those democracies seek to rule. on the other side of the same coin if you look at the youth in many of these countries where democracy is under great pressure and where institutions have confidence in these institutions has in fact been compromised as a result of the influence they are our more

youth than many of these countries who are willing to accept order in their lives than necessarily democracy in their lives. we really have to bury pernicious potential influences at work that we need to keep a close eye on. >> if i could add thank you congressman for your questions. jim and i have known each other for 30 years or something like that. our experience in russia, my wife and i were correspondents there. my wife went to a high school history class. she would check in on them in the theory of the story was the teacher who was struggling with these young hip kids. she discovered it was the other way around. the kids were the ones who had this nostalgia for an era that they never actually lived in.

they wanted to go back to that. they all wanted be capitalists actually. they didn't reconcile that but they took the quiz. who was right in 1917 and it was a the teacher who is trying to shape them and say no. it was a terrible time for us. there is a worry that the young generation in russia has this delusion of what order meant to them but does not keep with the reality. >> very very interesting. thank you. yes sir. >> wayne smith i'm a member the national press club and a radio journalist. my question relates to personal relationships. president nixon had some--had

one--president reagan had one with gorbachev was significant problems. here's my question and do you see the two presidents developing a good relationship personally and with that good relations between the two nations proof or not? >> in both of your examples great countries, the leaders great countries form a national interests. then the national interest coincide. nixon wanted detente to help with vietnam and rashness wanted --and they had a great relationship. of course reagan and gorbachev had a great relationship because

they both eliminated a whole class of strategic nuclear weapons and reagan believed that gorbachev was right. he would modernize the country. i am not sure how after sanction upon sanction upon sanction in russia and its bombing of its closest allies syria how could the president have a good personal relationship? >> it is not conducive to this happening. nobody would trust them. because of the things that we unmentioned and they were russian investigation by mueller. trump said early on in his presidency the environment it made it impossible to have a relationship with russia. anyone would suspect friendliness was motivated by something else. i think as long as putin is

there it's hard to see how the relationship changes. i think look back at the first couple years of the obama presidency. they looked at his as a failure. the truth is when there is a different russian leader medvedev was to long enough rope to do things differently. they thought very well of each other. they had interests. we saw what could have been like with a different leader. with putin and now i don't think we are going to see things change. >> okay, the next question please. >> good evening. my name is kayla schultz and i'm reporting here in washington d.c.. i know the topic of tonight's conversation is the relationship between the u.s. and russia but does it seem the u.s. has

bolstered its position with allies like britain and france? we see this in the attack in england and to weapons attack in syria. so my question is do you think this--like-minded foreign allies when it comes to sanctions on russia to? >> thank you for the question. and it's an interesting one. you can see with the u.s. in this moment britain allying itself with the u.s. for example finds an area foreign policy that is not domestically toxic for theresa may. where she can tell the british

people their lines is still there. we are bridge between america and the closest ally in something that has on goings skepticism and hangover of the iraq war aside not politically popular for her. france onboard for different reasons but how can they not be? whatever the personal relationship which appears relatively warm as some other ally relationships. what did they not have to gain? it was interesting being in russia i was fair with the turkish cobol as the turkish spying was happening. they were deeply skeptical that russia was behind it and they were deeply skeptical that russia has hacked into board

systems and is trying to influence u.s. elections. even as the uk and france, germany the u.s. were coming out with a statement condemning the attacks saying are they all wrong? are they all making this up? yes, you are all making it up. >> this may be the last question we will have time for. please. >> i'm dr. gregory page the national press club member and a trial attorney for the u.s. department of justice. they just wanted to mention i was intrigued by the panelists reference to a new containment doctrine. at first listening to the range of this discussion it would seem like you have russian money supporting chemical weapons and genocide in syria. you have this new whole russian

nationalism thing that putin seems to have adopted versus prosperity. it seems to be more permanent than relying on the price of oil and depending on disputes with the united states. then you have territorial expansion in crimea. my question to the panel is what would the containment doctrine look like and what do you think it would have to accomplish to be effective? >> leon it was your ideas so please explain it. >> again classic american foreign policy reported from russia and it was not unlike in some key respects not unlike what happens today. there were allies in the war. suddenly we are seeing the strange level of anti-americanism coming specific way from stalin from the supreme soviet. his analysis was very similar.

he said for domestic was bacl reasons we are in confrontation with the united states and obviously we cannot go to war with russia. we cannot because you know it's inconceivable. the best we can do is to help our allies on the border of russia and eventually nato came into existence. i would say, i mean the general will speak on that as well. my first suggestion would be as soon as possible put enough conventional force on nato that putin manipulates the risks of domestic versus foreign policy that he understands that any conventional attack. it's not rolling the tanks. it's crimea to especially with

latvia and estonia were 25% of the russian--along the eastern flank of nato for putin has not attempted to test it. that's what i would do. >> my response to that as time has run out is wow. i had thought when we were setting up this program that we would be able to leave all of you with the feeling that there is hope and we will be able to move from the down that we are now to some kind of up and the reason is it simply makes sense. no matter how deep the confrontation may be today at the end of that there's going to be eight united states and there's going to be a russia. both nations will survive so why don't they use their heads and

solve it in an intelligent way. i go back to my idea and i think it's terribly important that we have starting some kind of exchange. get that ruling again so people can feel and have experiences such as was pointed out the russians are here and the americans are here. let's try to get along and if that sounds terribly naïve forgive me but that is what i feel. thank you all so very much for being with us and especially our panel which i think was terrific. [applause]