host: just part of the 9000 word particle. want to take your calls on the "vanity fair" article on sarah palin. we will link this on our web site. republicans, democrats, independent why did they keep working

for her election after they realized some she was casual about the truth and unfit for the vice presidency? and how could john mccain with a love for history and overdeveloped sense of his own integrity and honor ever have taken a person whose shortage of qualifications for her proposed job all but qualify him for his? that was from "vanity fair." maryland, you are up next. have you read this yet? caller: i was wondering why he chose sarah palin to run with him. the lipstick on the pig, i

thought it was obvious that you cannot billicmake a make a silkf a sow's ear. he was not trying to denigrate her, obama, when he said that. i listened to an interview you had on "footnote's" with gore vidal. what he said was great. he said compared to sarah palin, the rest of us are like oxford graduates. >host: on the line. >caller: as far as experience, what we have in the white house does not have a drop of experience. a loser. host: sarah palin is unlike any

other modern american figure. epiphenomenon all her own. the controversy that swirled around her and the surprise pregnancies, the blood feuds, the tawdry in-laws and others, give her family a singular status in the rose gallery of political rhetoric. it makes roger and bill clinton seemed like avatars now. that is what the article goes on to say. now massachusetts on the line. caller: now about the interview's sarah palin gave to katie couric. she was asked whether she knew of any supreme court decisions.

she said she did not. it was just before that, the alaska supreme court signed exxonmobil -- find expert on globagave exxonmobil a fine of r billion dollars. exxonmobil appeal to those u.s. thsupreme court and the reduced the fine to $500 million. that means she knew about that supreme court decision. she is more for the oil companies than she is for the people of alaska. host: let's hear from a republican caller from maryland. nick, have you seen the piece yet? caller: i'm probably not going to read it. just like every other liberal, they hate her, but they don't know about her.

during the elections, she had the most experienced of any of the candidates. the most -- must and services did not want mccain. she is conservative. mccain was not. that is why he lost the election mainly. when she was brought on to the ticket my friends call me to say they hated her. i asked what they know about her, but they said they did not know anything. if that is typical. to this woman has an amazing story. it is amazing to me that all of these sexist comments in the article you just spoke about. if we talk about democrats like that, they would be all over it. it's a big double standard. that is the way things are. host: thank you for your call. we have the peace links at our website. now he goes on to write, sarah palin chooses to reveal herself.

what she reveals is not always the same as the truth. her singular refusal to have in- depth conversations with the national media, like nixon putting out detailed interviews, has compounded the understanding of try to understand lucretias. and this piece from "the political." we will read that in a couple of minutes. now from brunswick, ga., chris, a democrat. when caller: sarah palin first came out in the media, there was a lot of attention about her. something that was easy to find on you to were strange religious videos. she was at a church in what scylla -- in alaska's saying

things stranger than george bush did. america does not need someone who is free initially religious. -- who is freakily religious. we don't want them to continue getting away with the robbing of the american people. if the federal reserve, why don't they just give money directly to the american people instead of the banks? host: i appreciate the call. now from massachusetts. caller: i've been watching politics a long time. in the past five years the democrats have put out a strike team that any up-and-coming, they tried to kill them at the get go. sarah palin is a prime example. george allen was another.

any person that's going to make, look like they're going to be a player as far as republicans are concerned, the strike team sets out to destroy them from the get go. host: here's the piece by jonathan martin int "political." they write a hard hitting duty as touched off a blistering exchange of insults among high- profile republicans over last year's ticket, tearing open fresh bones about leaks surrounding pailin and revealing the first time to internal wars that terrorized the campaign in its final days. rival factions close to the maintaimccain campaign. >> were leading this now and take you back to the discussion on the upcoming summit between president obama and russian president medvedev. that will take place in moscow next week. iran, arms control, nato,

missile defense, other issues to be discussed. the second panel here live from the heritage foundation live on c-span. >> welcome. by james brooks and i will moderate a panel. we're happy to be joines by the director of the european democracy project senior fellow. the your program at the center for strategic and international studies in washington. you speak about nato and russia, ukraine, and georgia. if next to him is sandy sanders, a partner at greenberg. he was about the need to the rule of law and property rights in russia. arie l. is still appear. he will be there for closing remarks. if you want to start us out this morning, that would be great. >> thank you. >> it's your call. >> good morning, everybody.

i was asked to focus on russian policy toward ukraine and georgia as well as nato, european union, u.s. responses to that policy. soden brown the world in 10 minutes. i will get as much as possible. -- around the world in 10 minutes. let me say this before i speak specifically about ukraine and georgia and how i see russia's policies. there are several points the u.s. administration needs to keep in mind in setting or resetting policy towards russia. these are important. first, i believe russia is revisionist and restoration iis. there in the process of legitimizing the restoration of dominance among its neighbors. moscow, i think, will intensify its campaign during the celebration of the 1989 democratic revolution, the

collapse of the soviet union, 1919. it will claim that russia somehow fallen steadily gave up communism and the soviet bloc and the cold war ended in a stalemate. looking back on 1989, we have the fall of the berlin wall when changes have to the began before that. it is often overlooked that those historic events not only signal the collapse of communism, they also heralded the national liberation of the east european nations from soviet-russian blue chip. while communism now is a fading nightmare, the struggle to maintain state independence from an increasingly assertive russia continues to this day. second, while it is understandable that policymakers in america and europe wish to see russia transformed from a strategic adviser to a strategic partner, it is important to base

such an approach on a realistic appraisal of moscow pose a geopolitical objectives. strategic partners not only share particular policies, they are also bound by common interests and enduring goals. while russia can be a partner with villines in dealing with threats such as nuclear proliferation, climate change, or counter-terrorism, the government in moscow does not share the long-term strategic goals of either nato or the european union. nato allies are committed to respecting the will of sovereign states and multinational institutions of their choice. they also supports the expansion of democratic systems, of legitimate government, that combine stability with respect for human and civil rights. the same foreign policy principles do not apply to the russian authorities. third, contrary to western

interests, the kremlin has strategies that revolve around what i call a form of pragmatic imperialization in which 0 some calculations prevail. russia's administration seeks to be a global player and to achieve this goal it is intent on rolling back american influence, neutralizing the european union by focusing on bilateral ties with selective states, reestablishing zones of privilege to influence along its borders, and curtailing the expansion of western institutions, particularly the eastern ones. fourth, russia's neo imperial project no longer relies on soviet era instruments, at least not primarily. such as ideological allegiance, military force, and the deal with georgia, or implementing

government. the principal goal is to exhort predominant influence over the foreign and security policies of disparate states that will either remain neutral or support russia's policies. fifth, while its goals are imperial, a common strategies are pragmatic. it employs eclectic methods involving a mixture of enticement, threats, incentives, and pressure. russia's national interests are seen as predominating over those of its neighbors. russia deploys a range of weapons to curtail the further expansion of the nato-european union area and to weaken its effectiveness. i will not go into detail. i've published a book at the end of last year and have another one coming out at the end of this year on the same subject, if you are interested in it. >> it's available on heritage.org.

>> thank you. russia's administration aims to discredit western institutionas. it seeks to neutralize democracy-promoting institutions such as the 0 [unintelligible] , it manufactures security disputes with nato, such as the missile defense shield, in order to gain advantages in other areas, it seeks brand bargains to consolidate its interests, and [unintelligible] 7, its domestic problems precipitated by the global financial crisis will not curtail its expansion or ambitions. i believe in order to deflect attention from mounting social

and regional disquiet, the kremlin may further cultivate a sense of the siege meanbeseigemg the caucuses. president obama has had various interpretations. some of russia's neighbors fear the russian imperial impulses may be overlooked by washington and grand bargain is struck with moscow at the cost of central european security and sovereignty. when i pressed hard reset button, i lose all information and go back to my manufacturers setting. i hope that's not the case. now to ukraine and georgia. i will try to be brief. russian leaders, i believe, those in power, don't accept the

independence of ukraine. they'd view ukraine primarily as a region near russia. ukraine is denied a separate history, culture, and distinct national identity. ukraine statehood has been viewed as a temporary aberration and the ideal scenario is to create a closed political and military alliance directed from moscow. the ukrainians have not helped matters. power struggles between interest groups and industrial lobbyists in ukraine provide opportunities to pull the country back into a russian orbit. moscow engages in various forms of subterfuge and subversion to achieve its goal, including energy blackmail, private corruption, economic buyouts, media propaganda, discrediting other politicians, attempts at

diplomatic isolation, manipulation of national and regional issues, threats of direct military intervention or even a breakup of the country, protection of russian ethnic groups or russian speakers on the territory of ukraine, and challenges over the ownership of the naval base in crimea. moscow's ability to enter the ukraine economy through energy blackmail, raising the prices, or by calling in debt, telling the country's social and political stability. the russian minority has been exploited by moscow to apply political pressure on kiev. kiev remains an sund about possible, and support, particularly for separatism in crimea and some eastern areas of the country in the wake of the georgian-prussian war last year. since the orange revolution of

2004, russian authorities have continued to impose -- interfere in ukrainian politics. instead of putting all their eggs in one basket they have courted the president and prime minister there. they continue to support the other gentlemen and they welcome a coalition that no longer exists. with presidential elections approaching in ukraine in january 2010, moscow, i believe, will have new opportunities to exert its influence over ukrainian policies. ultimately, i think moscow has three options. first, full political domination, which is a despdifficult proposition. second, keeping the country off balance and out of alliance with european structures. the european union, will talk about that later, seen as a threat in moscow. here i think they have been more successful since 2004.

third, which is the ultimate option, outright territorial position, which is the last resort, if the ukrainian authorities were to veer too fall was and is the western open to that of veering. now to russia and georgia. i'll be brief. russian authorities, i think, in middle of last year calculated they would gain several long- term advantages from military invasion. a defacto partition of georgia is the effect. first, holding georges progress toward nato, as several european union states contend membership in mask, let alone in nato, itself, with further provoke moscow to generate european relations. georgia has stiffened its position in your against offering nato maps to any other post-soviet states including

ukraine. second, undermining the government of saakashvili, which is depicted in the kremlin as the property of washington. third, highlighting the limits of american-nato protection of a partner state, in the face of moscow's military assertiveness while displaying russia's right to power. it's a contradiction in the way russia views nato. it depicts nato as a threat to security. on the other hand it depicts nato as too week to manage insecurities both in europe, the balkans, and the periphery. fourth, sending warnings to neighboring states with russian minorities for separatist disputes, including ukraine, azerbaijan, and anothmoldova awy from western influence. fifth, weakening confidence in

energy liner notes from the caspian basin to europe. including the nobuko pipeline. thereby prompting russian monopolization of energy routes to supplies. during the summer of 2008 the european union and nato displayed what i believe was impetus in russia's display in the south caucuses. there was a security vacuum in regions where nato has not committed itself when it comes to its defense. and where russia's expansionism is accelerating. the russian dass georgia warren has become a test case -- the russia-georgia war has become a test case with dealing with crises for nato. and an ability to pressure russia or convince russia to withdraw its troops from

occupied territories, to in place and a peacekeeping mission in georgia territories, or to restore georges turrell in territory will send a negative signal to all nearby states threatened by russia's ambitions and may actually encourage those ambitions in the years ahead. in conclusion, and and not going to go into many recommendations, in conclusion, president obama, through the popularity and support he has generated in europe, has a unique opportunity to rebuild transatlantic relations by basing them on three core principles. first, effective, security provides principally by the nato alliance. second, openness to new members that meets the standards necessary for an exception, or developing closer bilateral ties

with the united states. third, a cooperative approach toward all other powers, including russia, but one that does not sacrifice the first two principles. that is it. thank you. >> sandy. >> thank you first to the heritage foundation, and to aerial for the opportunity to speak today on the eve of the summit. the issue of the rule of law and property rights is critical to the relationship between the united states and russia. to use an overused phrase, as the world becomes flat, the rule of law becomes more and more important. it is almost 18 years ago to the day that i stood in a conference room and listened to soon to be ambassador strauss top about his new mission to go to then the soviet union as the u.s. ambassador. he focused on one issue, he

focused on the rule of law. his job was to go and be the emissary to help work with business people and government officials in the soviet union to understand the importance of the rule of law if russia was going to integrate itself into the international economy. at that time it had very little basis to understand the ground rules. that was the ambassador's job to explain that. that is why he was going to the soviet union, to deliver the message that if the soviet union established rules that business people would be able to adapt to them and follow them, even if they did not like them, but if they understood that there was a reasonably level playing field, rules event -- and a court system to enforce them, that business would come and business would flourish in russia, and the soviet union would progress as the u.s. administration and

gorbachov administration wanted it to go. in the first panel, it was said one has to pay attention to appearances. 18 years later what you have now is a lot of government and business people saw what was the appearance of adherence to the rule of law around the turn of the century and the millennium with russians generating wonderful clothes and rules, taken from some of the best that were available in other nations, but now what we have seen is a turn away from the appearance to the rule of law. this task force that the heritage foundation has put together and the position paper it has sent to decision makers. it will hopefully have some influence on the president's message when he goes to the

summit. this is a point that is stressed, the importance of the rule of law. the rule of law is not just for human rights. which everybody is quick to gravitate to. but the role of the rule of law in connection with the international economy and the business community, as russia seeks to grow its economy and expand it, for example with membership into the oecd. it has to understand -- we are reinforcing the importance of the rule of law in its ability to participate. it has to understand the price that it pays for not doing so. the first time i addressed this topic was more than five and a half years ago on october 27, which was the first business day after the arrest of kortakowski, and spoke about the rule of law as several did at the time

bridge in connection with that, the response that that man's position had little to do with the rule of law. it was a one-off event involving a wealthy businessman and a powerful politician. history has shown that that is not the case. the references in the prior pannell, almost all the stories that are written today, there is focus on those two men as the symbol for russia's turn away from the rule of law. the council of foreign affairs published a report in the summer of 2005 that referred to the rest of that one man as a watershed event. at the time the issue was raised that the rest of the man was a precursor to a jail sentence for him, but also for an attack on the company. again, that was denied. senior members of the russian

administration spoke publicly about how there was no intention of bankrupting that man or attacking his company. within weeks the most aggressive attack case the world has ever seen was launched. no one believes that was thought of in a matter of days. shortly thereafter, it was the russian government that bankrupted the man. the russian government bought the debt that several banks held bank with yukos, with the agreement of the banks would throw him into involuntary bankruptcy. we witnessed the sale of a gas company. a senior economic adviser in that administration called it the sham of the century.