caller because i was at the same rally and i never heard anybody scream at the handicaps going in. it was not just people in wheelchairs' up front. i was up front. i think that this constant trashing of her is because they are all afraid of her. the republicans and democrats. host: alabama, a republican line, what would you like to say about the sarah palin article? caller: sarah palin -- she was the smart one of the mccain- palin ticket and he is the reason why they lost. she is not perfect, but she remains a lady. if not, [unintelligible]

she is hated because she is unpretentious, which mostly these do not understand. and she is a christian. the media and our country hates that. host: tomorrow on our program, the chief foreign affairs correspondent will talk about the political and military situation in the middle east and in asia. also, edward montgomery, director of the recovery for auto recoveries and workers. we will talk about the administration and the bankruptcy of gm and chrysler. this coming saturday, ken silverstein, henry waxman. he is author of the waxman record. the journal is 7:00 eastern time each day. we hope you enjoy the rest of the day and we will see you

tomorrow. we're taking you now to the heritage foundation. they will have an event on the upcoming summit between president obama and russian pres. medvedev. we will hear from several folks from heritage who run a couple of hours. enjoy the rest of your day. . . >> simply addressing them to speaker@heritage.org. we will feature two panels hosted by ariel cohen and peter

brooks. oc. hen isdr a. cohen is a senior research analyst and peter brooks serves as a senior fellow for a national security affairs as well as a fellow for policy studies in the asian studies center. their introductions will occur later in the program. opening our program as helle dale. she serves as director of eight foreign policy studies and is also deputy director of the kathryn and shelby cullom davis institute. she is in a media fellow at the hoover center hindi's serves on the board of visitors at georgetown -- and serves on the board of visitors at georgetown. she is also a member of the council on foreign relations. please join me in welcoming helle dale. [applause]

>> thank you john and thank you to all of you for being here today. we will have a very interesting program. we will try this video link with moscow once before, and i think we are improving our technique. i think this morning we should have a fairly smooth run by the looks of it. we have from moscow the head of the heritage office and will be joined by other commentators over there. as you know, we are looking at an important event in the early years of the obama administration, the summit in moscow with president medvedev. the relationship between the u.s. and russia is one of the most important in defining u.s. foreign policy.

we hear at heritage are deeply interested and somewhat concerned about the way the news administration looks like it wants to take that relationship. we have a lot of questions and we are hoping that are two panels today will have some of the answers. we have an outstanding line up both here from washington and from moscow. the topics under discussion in the presidential summit will they are is control, possibly a new strategic reduction treaty. -- they will be arms control. there will be discussions about the russian demand for a new global security architecture, specifically in moscow wants to halt nato enlargement and prevent ukraine and georgia from joining that institution. i am sure there will also be

reflections on russia's standing in the global financial crisis which has hit harder over there. and from the american side, the and ministration hinted it would like to see a grand bargain -- the administration hinted it would like to see a grand bargain in the u. s-russian relationship. secretary of state clinton talked about the reset button. whether they can conceive -- whn pushing that are not is a question. it looks like the obama administration will be willing to trade some of the missile defense plants in central europe for russian corp., a rand's nuclear program -- for russian cooperation, iran's nuclear program.

so what does mr. obama wants, what does he understand about the russians? some believe it may not be very much, unfortunately. some people over there say they kind of regard president obama as eight gorbachev -- like gorbachev, somebody they can do business with. but gorbachev is not like in russia because he put an end to the soviet empire. to look at all these questions, to look at the reality in the relationship with russia and what the russian society expects from president obama, arms control in the economics, the gamut of all the issues we will

be addressing in the next week. join us for our panel of experts. our first speaker -- our first moderator will be ariel cohen, who is the senior research fellow at the heritage foundation in russian studies and energy issues. he is a well recognized international expert on u.s.- russia relations. he has written extensively both in terms of his own books and is published in newspapers and journals all over the world. i know that you are familiar with his name, as i hope our televisions -- error television audience is as well. over to you. >> -- our television audience as well. >> thank you for coming. thank you to court viewers at c- span and. the u.s.-russia relations talk

-- thank you for each of the viewers at c-span. the question today is whether we are facing in the beginning or things will continue very much as business as usual. the advantage of being in a think tank and not in the government is that in the government today a lot of our colleagues are scrambling redding last-minute menace. we can take a 30,000 foot view. -- our colleagues are scrambling writing last-minute memos. hopefully the first panel will reflect that balance. arms control is at the heart of the u.s.-soviet relationship and now the u.s.-russia relationship.

the second part of the panel, are on a leading expert on arms control will speak, but we will start with someone who has the lifetime of experience and a bird's eye view of this relationship, as well as other strategic relationships. fritz ermath was a director of national security programs at the nixon center. he was senior director in a ronald reagan's national security council and the chairman of the national intelligence council. he will provide the american panoramic perspective on the relationship and where the summit is taking us. he will be followed by a irina yasina.

she is the director of the original journalists and club. she graduated from moscow state and received a ph.d. in 1990. she worked as a reporter for a news agency from "moscow news weekly." she was the head of public affairs department for central bank of russia, so she has a broad perspective as a journalist and as the board member and project director for the charitable and education director at the non-governmental organization. then we will live still here arms control issues -- then we will move to arms control issues with baker explained. baker worked for senate -- control issues with baker

spring. he contributed to defeating the anti-ballistic missile treaty early in the decade and provided extensive studies of treaty, and also worked on a very advanced war gaming at heritage. last but not least, we will be joined by yevgeny volk. we have known each other since 1993. he is heading our moscow office. he was a staffer in the supreme soviet on security issues. he was deputy director of the russian institute for strategic studies. he was very well known in international media and is a graduate of the prestigious moscow institute of national

relations. that is the outline for the first panel. with that, i that asked fritz ermath to start. >> as i am something of a cu rtain raiser for others, of my remarks will be brief. perhaps not as comprehensive as ariels' introduction suggestion. i take my cue from the observations that the obama administration is trying to improve u.s.-russia relations from their worst condition since the end of the cold war. the cold war, that is something i know something about. it prompts me to ask what lessons for the management of u.s.-russian relations can we draw from the cold war experience? although the situation is different, and russia is not the

soviet union. there are some applicable lessons, and i want to speak to three of them one of them is, as was the case in the cold war, u.s. policy-making for russia should be informed by the deepest possible understanding of russia as a system, as a country, as a state, as a culture. during the cold war we devoted enormous resources to understanding the soviet union comprehensively, not just militarily. and that investment paid off. it was a substantial contributor to our successful management of cold war relations. a deep understanding of russia

is a requirement for the conduct of a sensible policy today. despite the transparency, despite the much more open condition of russia as a country and a stake in the soviet union ever was, i would submit that our understanding of russia is weaker than it should be. this is partly because it is a confusing reality. it is also varied considerably because russia does not get the attention it deserves an academic, think tank anti- government analytical circles. other priorities have taken -- and government analytical circles. other priorities have taken over the attention spans of the community. as a result, we don't have the kind of institutionalized

knowledge in the consensus about the nature of our partners in this relationship that we had in the case of the soviet union. i think that is a liability, but could and should be corrected by more investment and more attention. we don't even have a label for what kind of society or a system russia is. my favorite, which brings agreement for many but no real consensus, is byzantine financial feudalism. we know what feudalism is. it is a relationship of vertical and horizontal authorities, formal and informal, based on clan, family,

personal relationships. now we know that unlike the middle ages it is not about land and peasants, it is about money. it is financial feudalism. i call a byzantine because it is largely an governed by law, unlike western feudalism. that is my analytical offering on the nature of the russian system but conducting a policy intelligently toward that country requires a deeper understanding of it. institutional, political, economic, cultural. secondly -- the second big lesson, and i don't want to steal the thunder of my colleagues but i have to speak my mind. the priority of arms control. the u.s. and russia are the

founders of the nuclear weapons era. we owe it to ourselves and to the world that we manage our relationship and this legacy with the utmost seriousness and care. i think it was a mistake for the bush administration to downgrade arms control, which it tried in his lungs couple of years to remedy. -- which it tried in its last couple of years to remedy. and obama is right to put the arms control issue front and center. but it has to be done right. hear, the most important thing where i have some doubts is that there be a maximum transparency about courses,

technology, programs and strategy and doctrine. in the cold war, u.s. intelligence supported all kinds at analytical efforts and enforced that transparency over a reluctant soviet union. today, there is much more natural transparency because of the openness of russia, but there are areas of worrisome confusion that are troubling. for example, we have decided at russian insistence to leave tactical nuclear weapons out of

the arms control dialogue or negotiations. russian doctrine makes the role of nuclear weapons in russian strategy in some ways even more important than it was for the soviet union, to make up for the deficiencies of its forces. in that doctrine, tactical nuclear weapons, of which the russians have to let tactical nuclear weapons play a very important role. also, and while widely discussed in the 1990's and never mentioned a sense, the options were limited long-range strikes against targets. if you take these doctrines seriously, you have to ask why

we have any business here talking about the dramatic reduction of nuclear forces, including constraints on the delivery systems involved without bringing tactical nuclear weapons into the story. i have a lot less trouble with what i think russian doctrine is and what they're doing with it. but transparency is called for and then we have a question of what broader foreign policy agenda russian military policy is intended to support. russian reliance on nuclear weapons raises some interesting and worrisome scenarios. it brings them to mind when you think about the charge that

russia is seeking to reestablish dominance over its neighbors. finally, there is the big democracy question. radical war, which was. -- for optical war, which was out strategic power -- throughout the cold war, it was about strategic power. ronald reagan was the one who got it right, but did not find any conflict between pushing the strategic and security issues of realism along with the values of human rights and democracy. i saw this up close and personal. effectively done. the most important -- i saw all this up close and personal very effectively done.

it was not that he change the minds of gorbachev on the substance. the most important thing is he convinced them he was serious about that. this was an important part of obama's mission for moscow. he has to stand tall on debate democracy questions, not just individual freedom, freedom of the press, organized political opposition, but the rule of law , an honest and effective limited state. these are things that russians want, and they need to hear from the president of the united states that he is a tribute and defender of those values. hopefully, president obama will find both private and public occasions in moscow, to establish himself as such. >> thank you very much.

of course, some will say that may be president obama does not believe in a small compact market, but that is their opinion. i will go to irina yasina for a broad view from russia. what does russia civil society expect from this visit? what does it expect from the interactions between the leaders of russia, and i say plural because to exclude prime minister putin is from our own peril. whether somebody likes it or not putin his still the leading politician in russia. you may agree or disagree. do you think that the anti- americanisms that is so prevalent in the russian state

television channels is something that benefits the russian people? go ahead. 10 minutes. >> thank you. let me start by the end of your question. first of all, it is pleasant to see you again. your as handsome as you used to be. let me comment on what you said about putin being the leading politician. the events around wto exception showed to us to is the boss in russian politics. ina politics, and that is why i apologize for this example. -- i am in politics. s to anti-americanism on russian television, there is no tangible benefit you can touch and feel from it.

but the russian mentality is made this way. we are looking for enemies to blame for all of our problems. that is easy. you gave a very good playing card for our authorities because you should have been more careful. then we would that be facing that kind of crisis carry it is easy to blame everybody, especially the americans. everybody is to blame except the russians cannot because they don't like to look into the mirror and ask themselves am i to blame? this sounds simple but it is very serious and sad. now let's talk about the expectations of the russian civil society for president obama's visit. there are no expectations at all.

it is not just because our civil society is such is very scattered, it is not united. it does not have any evidence -- does not have any evidence he -- emminent expectations. i have heard two speeches of president obama in chicago after the elections, and the second one and egypt. i was deeply impressed because they showed to us that the united states is able and ready for ongoing change. and the u.s. is ready to change something in its own country to do better. the problem is that unlike you, we've the russians do not like to work on ourselves to better

ourselves at all. the thing is that people hill -- people who were oppressed alike in the 1968 martin luther king and now some many years after this we see a black man becoming a u.s. president. that is a challenge, but this and all -- this also shows weekend change something. -- this also shows a week can change something. he -- it shows we can change something. the egyptian speech of president obama is something many people remember, and i remember it because it was not so long ago. it was an historic speech where he demonstrated that the u.s. is

he ready to change in itself, because you have no one to demand that others change unless you are ready for the change themselves. he first change yourself and ask the others then if you change yourself. i hope during his visit to russia president obama also say a moving speech, but on the topics which are closer and known to russians who are free from totalitarian sticproblems t long ago, we know that and we have done a lot of errors kopach hit -- we have made a lot of errors, but we are ready to start changing. whenever that president obama will make a speech -- we know that president obama will make a speech. [unintelligible]