poorly we want to do more to help people feel better by reducing the taxes which is exactly what we're doing. all of this will be put at risk if we give up on reducing the deficit and being responsible economic policies. the that is what the opposition would give us a higher mortgage rate and higher taxes, just what hard-working families don't need. >> does the prime minister think it is fair that a fat pregnant woman will now have to pay 1200 pounds to take the maternity discrimination case to the ?mployment >> the one thing we have done is make sure that people don't earn those rights until they have worked for two years. i think that is the right approach. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thanks to the chancellor's economic policies, unemployment fell by 10% last month. sinceat its lowest level september 2008.

many of those jobs were created in small businesses who now have the confidence to invest. will the prime minister commit to supporting the small businesses to help us grow the economy? >> my honorable friend is quite right. my honorable friend is just talk about helping people back into jobs, he set up a jobs club in his constituency which is in huge amount to bring businesses large and small together with those who want jobs. that is sort of action on the ide of house that's the sort of social action on this side of the house that we believe in. >> i want to talk about the about the situation with crosby.

prime minister, i have served in this house under four previous prime ministers who reply to members' letters. >> order. this will be heard with some courtesy, as i expect of all questions. very simple and very straight-forward. >> i have served to four previous prime ministers who reply to letters. why don't you? >> i will reply right now. public health is a matter of public health. linden's responsibility is the labor party. >> order! >> order. i thank the prime minister and colleagues. >> british prime minister david cameron answers questions from members of the house of commons live on wednesday morning on c-span2 airing one hour later this week because of the u.k.'s daylight savings time. you can watch this wednesday at

8:00 a.m. easter time. before congress returns to work this week, we talk to a reporter about what's ahead on capitol ill. >> it will be a short week on capitol hill. we are join -- one of the things happening off the florida of the house next week, the two hearings looking into the health care law. what will committee members hear about next week? >> the hearings -- it is usually not the case that the ahearings are a bigger case than the floor stuff, it will be more on obama care and implementation. the second of health and human services will testify, and the house energy and commerce committee, and she's obviously been -- the person who is not only responsible for the website

roll-out, but i think by about 10%, trying to find out. so she's going to get an earful, as they say famously. one thing they say is grilled at the hearing. she'll be grilled at the hearing probably. people will ask questions like, what did you know? did you know it was not going to work that well? and who is in charge of the whole operation. the administrator of c.m.s. and medicare and medicaid services. that's the group that said to the agency it was coordinating construction of the site. she'll get an earful, too. >> the house was writing about next week's house senate budget meeting. revenues are on the table in budget talks. they are talking about republican tom coal. what's the deadline facing that

conference? >> this conference is happening because of the bill that ended the shutdown and extended the debt ceiling. they have a september 13 deadline. they are high hopes that -- a lot of people have high hopes that everyone is always looking for that sort of ends the fiscal debate. but that's a quick deadline. you already had democrats saying, we need to do this before thanksgiving, because they don't want to get -- they don't want to get through thanksgiving and come back with a week or two left. maybe there are problems with the deal, and they are starting to create a crisis again, give a little schiffer. mid to late november. that seems to be putting a lot of pressure on a short-term deal that might just get funding until 2014. and it may be that we do not have much in the way of taxes.

>> it will be interesting to see of the roll back some dodd-frank initiatives. >> dodd-frank is the financial reform law. there are two ideas up next week. they seem to have a measure of bipartisan support. one would expand the ability of banks to do swats trade. that's an instrument that let's them hedge risk. hedging risk is what -- many think hedging risk is what lead to a lot of risk in the fim crisis from five years ago. they closed down the ability of banks to do certain swaps trade. now a lot of people including ben bernanke including the federal trade think we should expand them. there is another bill up that in

a simple way sort of limit the ability of labor department to compose new standards for certain financial advisors that will wait for them to wait for the f.c.c. to act first. so some sort of softball things with dodd-frank. we're seeing a lot of bipartisan dills bills come up since the debt ceiling. there will be a veterans affairs backlog bill up this week. we've seen a lot friendlier stuff. it makes for more boring writing, but they are doing a lot more bipartisan work. >> you can follow him on fwitter at petek.the hill. >> the house returns at noon eastern and begins the week with suspension bills. those will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. eastern. later in the week they plan to propose two bills dealing with

financial industry regulations. one would remove regulations on financial -- the other, manage regulations over brokered-dealer conduct. in the senate they will be debating the nomination of richard griffin, jr. for the national labor relations board general counselor. he is a former union lawyer. he was a recent appeal to the board. he was removed after about a year and a half. you can watch live coverage of the house here on c-span and the senate on our companion network, c-span2. >> this week on c-span, testimony on two health and human services on the implementation of the health are law. tavenner marilyn will testify for the house ways & means committee. we'll have that live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. kathleen sebelius will testify before the house senate and commerce committee on wednesday.

live at 9:00 a.m. eastern also n c-span3. >> the courtship of bess wallace and harry truman began here at her home of independence, missouri. >> when my grandfather visited indiana, this is in 1910, he often stayed across the street at the nolan house which is where his aunt and his two cousins live. one afternoon he was over there with his cousins, with the family, and his aunt brought in a cake plate that my great-grandmother, madg gates-wallace had. he had given her a cake, and mrs. nolan had cleaned the cake plate and was asking if anyone would bring it back over, and my grandfather moved with something -- grandmother

described as the speed of light in the hopes that my grandmother would invite him in, and she did. and that is the beginning of their formal courtship. live on monday on c-span and c-span3. >> next a decision of u.s. ussians relations. hosted by the center on global interests. this is about two hours. >> a discussion now on how serious is affecting u.s.-russia relations. >> hi. welcome to the brookings institution. thank you for coming out on a rainy august day to talk about u.s. russia relations. we have a really great panel today.

i will give a brief introduction of them. they have more accomplishments in your biography panel. it is an all brookings panel more or less that we are proud f. we have extremely well known, extremely distinguished russian and american diplomats, which is, i think, in a way a rare situation. usually in washington i hear in -- i hear about russian position from american experts. now at the brookings institute maybe from the guy who knows it firsthand what the russian position on so many issues lately.

we can see, we can hear, and we can question their positions, foreign policy. russian foreign policy, policy toward the united states from ssian ambassador himself and -- i don't need to introduce them. everybody knows. ambassador pickering and pfifer.or we will try to make this as informal as possible. which makes sense. we'll have like five or seven minutes for each of you to speak, and then if you want to ask questions, i'm sure you have asked questions of each other many, many times in your life, but now you can do it with microphones. we have two microphones here in the room.

if you want to ask a question, have you to come to those microphones for your questions. it will be recorded by six men. so adjust your seats. if you would like to ask a question, i suggest you move now closer to the microphone, otherwise you have to go past so many people and wait in line for the microphone. what about russian-u.s. relations? in ink we all enjoy drama the u.s.-russian relations. you need the drama. when there is no drama, we try to find one. it is like an interesting ong-time game to play.

if you look at the reality, what's going on between two countries, i think you will think, what a contradiction. in the last few months we have heard so many news about these volatile relations. president obama canceled his visit. we have g8 in moscow, g20 in moscow, we have syria, which kind of made us scratching heads and think what's going on there? and what will be the end of this , u.s.-russian relations, how will this affect it? so many speculations, so many rumors. i would like to somehow put them in order without typical shington dramatize zation -- dramatization. so let's talk business. what's the state of u.s.-russian

relations? the view from moscow, from the u.s. political elite. and i will ask sergei to give a few points. i hope we'll have discussion later. thank you. >> thank you. hank you, nicolai. it is my privilege to welcome the center on global interest and your guests to russian embassy. we had a discussion with nicoli long ago about the way his think tank is running, and he told me there are a lot of russians interested in russian-american relations, and he challenged me to talk to the younger generation of people ivented in -- interested in this. that it would be challenging and interesting for all of us.

maturity can lend a light to the urebes we discuss. secondly, i wanted to extend special welcome to my colleagues , ambassador pickering and ambassador piper, with whom we have worked in different settings so many years trying to resolve the issues, that are till being discussed and still mature for being resolved. i would like to limit myself to a number of points. basically three about ussian-american relations. i hope in further discussions we

can discuss them further. my first point is what is written about american-russian relations today. i will tell you that i start each and every day, my working day, reading that thick a file of clippings from american press and russia, and it is one of the most distressful readings one can find. as one friend of mine from the press told me, good news about russia doesn't sell in this country. that probably is true. but i would say that the quality of these relations, however experienced sometimes, tensions and electricity, but by and large, it is much better and much more substantial than it is usually portrayed. i would like to remind you that the cold war is over. at least it is over for us. we have been living in a new setting where the challenges,

especially in the rehlm of security are very much new. terrorism, collaboration of weapons of mass destruction. economic challenges of the crisis. we go from one crisis to another trying to bring you the world -- trying to bring the world economy out together. we also are working on a number of projects, syria being one of them. i hope we will not only limit ourselves working together on chemical weapons in syria, which s very unprecedented kind of partnership, and cooperation, but also we are working on that stage, and that is political settlement for syria. i was very much in coach and seeing how well we are able to discuss on six months, 12 months ago. we are far, far apart. that doesn't mean we have the same positions on each and every

issue in syrian settlement. what is important is that both russia and the united states understand that the only solution that can be found from this situation needs to be negotiated one. nothing else will work. that was a basis enough for us to start working together. it is most certainly a done deal, and it is going to be a difficult process, we understand. nonetheless, we work diligently o help to resosm this issue. we work in more general terms trying to reinforce the regime -- early ether with

on we were able to set in motion 30 years ago. i would add to this a couple of new things. they could be very important in the characteristic. given some differences we used we did during months, rticipate in joint exercises of the military to combat terrorist threats. they were the air force training to be r on the pacific prepared to work together. it is important. and there are a number of situations giving us a better picture of what russia and the united states can do together.

my to be prepared second point is that a more than 20 years, after the these he cold war, relations are still under-weled developed. if you consider the potential of relationship between these two super powers, countries with huge economic -- economic powteppings. you will have a much more developed economic economy than so far. our capabilities are bigger than we have been able to develop so far. so the opportunity for both economically, politically are much, much greater than we have been able to explore so far. i would emphasize that we can be congratulated that the trade was

rising bit by bit the last five to six years. but not too fast. last year if even dropped a little bit. this year it is not going to be higher than it was a year before. if not even a little bit smaller. and that's discouraging. we could have done much, much etter. everybody realizes the potential is huge. the u.s. certainly has a good market. by the way, i heard today an interview by the president of ford company. i didn't know it, but they are building a third facility in russia, because they consider that for them russian market is very, very important one, becoming one of the biggest in europe.

which most probably is true. that is good, and something we certainly welcome. it is not only additional good cars that will be running in it's jobs, it's taxes. it is something that needs to be expanded in the future. some of them are being very, very successful. i bring the case much t.m.k. they produce all kinds of pedestrian cues. helping, by the way, sell gas technology. becoming i think today number ne in the field because of the united states. so we see good examples of economic partners. if you are satisfied with the

interruption between russia and the united states, i would say no. economies like yours and ours is almost -- it is less than 7% of foreign trade which does not put the united states partners, by the same token russia is not your biggest economic partner either, however the possibility to develop this trade is enormously high. on top of that i think we are lacking direction between the societies of both countries. we would like to see more dialogue between the legislators of both countries. when people talk, when they explain themselves and they explain what they do, and they theain what they do not do,

conversation is getting much more healthy. and my third point, related to both the first and second, is what we are missing after the more than 20 years after the cold war was over is a little it of normalsy in relations. suggesting that everybody is looking for drama in u.s.-russian relations, even when there is no basis nor no reason for drama when we do a lot of things together, because it shows you interest -- it erves no interest. and extended political relationships as well. so i would say that among the

priorities that we want to look into in the future is economy and relling and cultural exchanges. and i would add to this, talking to this audience, different exchanges as well. we would like to see more american youngsters being in russia and seeing what russia is and what russia is not. american e token, spirit. i would sum up what i want to convey to you is three points. one, we do significantly more gether than general wisdom gives us credit for. it certainly would

eliminate drama and exaggeration of the differences that we have. the differences will certainly remove the part of our relations, and the remaining relations in all countries. it is all what is important that we need to be able, and so far we are thinking quite successfully to overcome them and move further with them and to develop partnership with them when it serves the interest of both countries. thank you. >> mr. ambassador, we'll save questions for mr. ambassador for later. i want to give you a chance to talk to ambassador pickering. >> first, thank you sergei very for your gey, hospitality. thank you for joining on this

particularly, i think useful and mportant platform. let me first compliment you on the young people in the audience. it is a way of expressing my appreciation for the people you brought, and indeed for the interest i see around the room and for the opportunity to set out for them a view of the relationship, which is, in my view, not too widely different. i agree with sergey very much on his first point. a critic years ago once said, vaugner's music is a lot better than it sounds. to some extent, that applies to the u.s.-russian relationship, particularly with the benefit of your early morning reading, in

which the absolute axiom is that there is never any positive publishible news coming out of the u.s.-russian relationship, to some extent. i think that's too bad bad. i think we need to recover that. your second point is very much along that line. i wanted a few minutes to talk about some of the opportunities, particularly in the middle east. i know steve will talk about some of the opportunities in the areas of arms control and disarmament and beyond, perhaps. my own sense is that the trade relationship leaves much to be desired. i happen to have been involved in my post government life -- and i had one -- with the boeing company, which did a great deal of work and still does a great deal of work in russia, including an airplane design -- a airplane design shop in moscow where 1500 excellent russian engineers, about 30% of them women, help and design boeing airplanes. and where our relationship in

the field of tie tainyum in particular is very -- titanium in particular is very strong. no boeing flies today without russian titanium, without russian design, and indeed without russian engineering. when the 77 airplane was being built, we had an option of having four, four-wheel landing gears or two, six-wheels. and we happened to notice on one of the airplanes a six-wheel airplane, so we copied your technology. in fact, we got the main beam in that landing gear from you in titanium. when it came time to test the landing gear, you offered us your facilities, and we did. then when it came time to fly the airplane and the landing gear squeaked, you said you knew how to take the squeak out. so in fact we had a very close collaboration in a modern airplane.

also, as you know, sergey, happened to have been on the board of the flight company you mentioned until last year, which has 11 plants in the u.s. and 11 plants in russia. it is the largest producer of pipe year in and year out, and which has played a huge role, as sergey said in developing the type oil in the united states. let me just also say i think there is a broad future for our relationship. my sense of what can drive the relationship is the opportunity we have from time to time to find win-win approaches. win-win strategies. win-win opportunities. and the re-- to reset the last, i think, area of positive development was based on a win-win. we now have syria in a very interesting way potentially opening the door to new

cooperation. in deed, it already has. i believe it has opened the door to the process of, in fact, destroying president assad's chemical weapons in a way that i think can contribute very seriously to more stability is in the area. i suspect that both of us have been worried for the last two years about the potential for the use of those weapons and the serious impact they might have in a broad and general way, first on the people of syria. when they were used on the 21st of august, that brought the issue to a head. what was clearly surprising was that within the space of 24 hours, a proposal was made that was seemingly a throw-away line by the secretary of state who was asked what would it take not to use force on syria. he said obviously get rid of all the chemical weapons. that would be a different ball game. within hours the foreign minister from russia came back

and said, let's do it. he happened to have -- i'll ask you if you will answer that question. you don't have to. he had the forpe minister of syria sitting with him practically on his knee. sure enough in a few hours, they said, we're going along with this. so here we had a deal. but it meant secretary kerry and the prime minister were able to put together quickly -- fairly quickly to the surprise of many people a set of deals with u.n. resolution which is now being implemented. to me this opens the door to a number of opportunities. i will quickly sketch them out. certainly we have worked together, and steve might mention this, in cooperative threat reduction on cooperation in the destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles. that experience, i think, can parlay itself into some very useful technical cooperation in this process. i think the u.s. will probably

not want to send people to syria. the president said no boots on the ground, although this is the -- this is different than the use of force in a military attack mode. nevertheless, i think we should cooperate to the greatest extent possible in our common technical approach to the area. secondly, if it is necessary, and i believe in some cases it will be, particularly if some weapons will be transported out for destruction, we have a cease-fire. my own view is a cease-fire is an important step if it can be implemented and maintained. it is, indeed, a significant step that could be in some ways segueyed into a future process in dealing with syria. we know now there will be talks in geneva. meetings have just ended in london to convince the opposition to attend. i am ven sure they have entirely successful, but at least there

is positive noise coming out of that. in those meetings at geneva they will have to address a number of issues. my view is, of course, it is difficult to conceive of geneva meetings taking place with preconditions. as much as one side wants to have preconditions, you can't condition attendance at a meeting to l -- to settle a problem by requiring that the problem be settled in advance, as much as that is to be desired. secondly, i think there is another, perhaps, political and diplomatic activity at work in geneva that we need to look at very carefully. up until now the idea has been that nothing can be agreed until everything can be agreed. that's a perfectly normal diplomatic idea. in syria, where 6,000 people are being killed a month, the hope is that an early cease-fire arrangement could begin to introduce a note of -- put it this way -- humanity, ration

nalt, solait about the process. -- solarity about the process. so holding up any agreement until everything is agreed seems to me also to be something of preposterous requirement. i think all the parties need to be there. my own view is they should move quickly to some kind of cease-fire and then deal with of how chant question and in what a way to form a new syrian government. i think there are things that can be done which are important. i think secondly, sergey, you mentioned nonproliferation. particularly iran. i wish i could say russian-american genius had produced some magical idea to deal with the dprk. my own opinion is that is a tough and difficult problem. we will have to use the chinese to help us work some magic on

that. better news is that the chinese are now getting frustrated with the dprk and its many changes of position, and neighbor maybe this will help. i think the three of us together, along with japan and the republic of korea could probably do a little better job in the future if we found ways to see more eye to eye. on iran we had remarkable change, too, almost in conjunction with the syrian change with the election of their president. they had meetings a week ago yesterday in geneva for an early presentation. it appears as if the reins have been somewhat more forthcoming in what they have put on the table and even more forthcoming in their willingness to discuss areas of problems and uncertainties. we have been warned by our russian colleagues not to expect magical happenings in a very short period of time. i think that is probably wise. i think it is also unwise to

ignore the fact that we're on the cusp of change. that will require from the p-5 plus one who were negotiating with iran and the united states some willingness to face up to the tough challenges, that compromises have to be made on their side as well. if in fact a deal can go ahead with a freeze or cutoff of enrichment is, in my view, highly problematic and i think highly unlikely. nevertheless, there are still divided opinions in the p-5 plus over that. even more, our country there have to segue from using pressure to achieve an objective. hopefully was to get negotiations going, to using sanctions as a trading -- as trading material to get a good agreement. that isn't easy. it isn't easy to get people's minds, particularly up on capitol hill around that segue given all the suspicions of

ran. i think we are today closer to achieving that closeness than we have ever been, and i think that's a good sign, and that may well allow us to think common interests, common objectives in the potential for a win-win into a further field. and i will leave it to my friend and esteemed colleague stephen piper to talk about all of that. >> thank you. first of all, let me also thank nicoli and sergey for organizing this panel and for inviting me. i'm going to break my comments down into three pieces. first i would like to talk about the overall relationship between he united states and russia.

it is certainly much better than it was in september of 2008 when gey took nt ey -- ser his position when i would say the relationship was at the lowest point at the end of the cold war. when you look at those particular factors which cause disputes between states, they are really absent between u.s.-russian relationship. we are not in conflict over resources, there are no tear torle issues. some in moscow friments talk about alaska, but that is not the official russian position. so those problems are not there. there still is some scratchiness. i think a larger part of that is ue to domestic partnerships. those impose some issues on the relationship and perhaps complications on the relationship. that's my first set of observations. on the second point, a couple comments on business.

i think one of the unfortunate things, going back to, tom, when you were in moscow and i was working on the national security staff, how could you build the trade and economic relationship between the united states and russia? it is good not only for the economies of both sides, but it is good for the politics and relationship. it provides some balast. i'll give you an example. u.s.-chinese trade is about $500 billion a year. what that means, when there is a sharp dispute between the u.s. and bay ying and washington, people think, we have to be careful here, because there is a lot of money at stake. when you look at the low-level reaction between russia and the united states, we don't have that balast. i think that's something important and that's missing from the relationship. i think there have been some success stories. i think boeing is a prime example of what the united states and russia can do together. there are too few of those success stories. part of this position does turn

on as russia decides what kind of investment. i still hear from some that russia is too hard of a place to do business. as russia can deal with some of those issues, a fair court system, end of corruption, i hink you will see some of that trade increase. sergey and i first met when we were arms controllers. i i served in mos moscow where i had the arms portfolio. and he was here in washington on his first or second tour, i think, with exactly the same portfolio. if you look at the relationship between washington and moscow over the last 40 years, u.s.-russia, and before that u.s.-soviet, there have been a number of times when arms control was useful both in terms of promoting a state -- more stable u.s.-russia strategic

relationship, but it also produced a broader impact on the relationship and have a positive impact. i think the early success in terms of negotiating a new stark treaty had a broader impact on the relationship. i think as tom suggested, if they can -- that injects more positive momentum in the overall relationship, can we go back and look at arms control as possibly a driver of better and stronger relations? i think there are some opportunities out there. even when the new stark treaty is fully implemented in 2018, the united states and russia will still have by the federation of american scientists about 4,500 nuclear weapons apiece. that means each of those countries is on the order of 15 times larger than the next country. i think there is significant room there for reductions. the russians i think raise a valid issue, whiches is the

relationship between offense and defense, and that means addressing some issues between ssia and moscow on missile defense. sergey and i have had this discussion on arms before. certainly there is a relationship between strategic offense and strategic defense. i would agree that at some point there should be a treaty regulating missile defense. the fral practical reality is that's not possible here now. that's an american problem. that's an american problem with the u.s. senate. i guess @ at this point i would say, if we can't fix that, can we doing in something else snl and from the perspective for the foreseeable future the gap from strategic offense and defense is going to be so large, maybe there's another way to go. what i'm hoping is if we get more experience working together on syria and iran, there may be

prospects for washington and oss cow to -- moscow to return to an agenda where they have consistent improvement from the past. taking missile defense, if you could resolve those problems, move back toward the idea that was discussed in 2010, of a cooperative nato russian missile defense, you could actually make it in that sense further relationship. then perhaps even washington and moscow. i think their primary responsibility to lead our nuclear rucks, maybe there is a conversation to be had between the two capitals, perhaps britain, france, and china, as to how they might make some commitments to nuclear arms control. i will stop at that point, and back to you. >> yesterday, a friend of mine presented me with a wonderful

record which is called "three tenors" and they were singing with susm synchronicity, i thought, maybe we can do this thing. with nicoli playing the role -- okes aside, i would say that both tom and steve have interesting arguments. i will start with economy, because it is something that we need to address, and we are addressing. there is a community that has 20-plus sub groups that are co-chaired by people on both sides on the ministerial level,

and these commissions are working to get better conditions to encourage business -- countries to work together. which is good. we are working also on improving the l requirements in russia. best interests is always one example when working together we win. by the way, yesterday there was a commission held by the prime minister of russia with a number a foreign big companies, significant number of americans seeking and discussing how best to create the climate that will be inviting more investment. but i would like to say that it is not that bad as sometimes portrayed. i have spoken to a number of american companies that have been operated in the united states. oftentimes they say they are not

going to draw the huge market data. now after a number of years we understand what is the need to be addressed, and the more companies understand how to operate in russia, the better for these companies and for russia. which is not meant to say that we are somewhat different from other countries. we just entered w.t.o., by the way with some assistance of the united states in the final phase of negotiations. and w.t.o. frame work, w.t.o. regulations is exactly what creates an environment that is understandable, known by all potential investors and trading morns importance in russia. more, we are rising the first gative benefits, the

membership the first case. but it is normal. trading environment, trading disputes need to be resolved through a normal mechanism that are there and created by all of us to work in the economic field together. i would like to say that the arguments from russia are unknown in terms of economic environment. we are a normal country, we have a market economy. we have yet to further mature. it is something we are working on each and every day. token, we would like to see more from the russian government being represented here, and working in american government. some of them are here. some of them are more less successful, but not many russian markets.

some of them, both russian side and american side, when you ask them why they are not russian in these huge markets, they say, i don't want to really see political rellses -- and there is a kind of vicious circle. some look at political relations as a kind of example of how economic relations can work, and thers say economic relations are not mature enough to substantiate better political relations. all these things can go hand in hand and need to be developed in parallel, and we are very much interested in doing so with the u.s. government. before this meeting, i looked up at the calendar, the meetings, and i found i think a dozen meetings that will be addressed on both sides on governmental

level on how to increase chances of these two countries to be more cooperative economically. arms control. arms control has always been a very important dimension of soviet-american and russian-american relations. even as we speak, we have a very good agreement that has been implemented that certainly would use strategic -- strategy. but the lower you go, the more important this interrelationship -- en offensive and doifs defensive weapons. we have to understand how this is going to develop around russia. it is not clear. i mean, in the absence of that kind of understanding, it would be difficult to go further address the production.

small or other countries that do possess nuclear weapons. ? of them are in alliance with the united states, and we simply would like to further implement l -- secondly, we want others to be part of dialogue. we need to address the interdependence between different parts of security relationship, ballistic missile defense included. also outer space. what has happened to outer space? how is it going to affect the weapons on the ground? 6 how the appearance in the uture of strategic offensive preps weapons with nonnuclear wires are going to change the calculations to not only understand it, but we want to have a conversation that will , this l the elements

relationship in a more predictable and reliably stable fashion. one additional thing. it's not exactly arms control, but disagreement in force together with the -- in time together with the agreement on further reduction, strategic weapons. the united states got greements three. ne, two, in russia it is called peaceful relationship -- something that wasn't available between the united states and soviet union for decades. and it entered into force three years ago, and it opened huge from bothossibilities countries both in terms of

supply of uranium. by the way, we are supplying uranium today to your country as a result of an agreement expiring this year. it is for 10 years. e were using uranium extracted from nuclear wares, the energy level, to feed your electric system. the head of russian aatomic energy told me in terms of the kilowatt roduces -- produced, it is probably the biggest supplier from energy outside of the united states. it is a good agreement. it has proved to be reliably implemented, and it is expiring, but it doesn't mean that we -- we still are working together, but it will be a normal

commercial basis. we also see increased interaction between our specific research institutions. and i hope in the future we will see more 0 development on seismic intelligence. both russia and america understands that in the future we will have to develop more long-term, more protalitarian resistant, more inharntely safe. i would label that kind of cooping in this particular field a category that tom alluded to. thank you. >> thank you. when sergey agreed to challenge my understanding in international relations by experts with russian relations

people that are in the global world, i was very happy. i am glad you -- i am happy you are close on your understanding, and i think we have to somehow get through this and get new vision, new concepts what the relation should be. "agree in the past it is because of the people that were helped. for instance, i agree that there but not success, because of character because of n, but

character and how things can develop. i think a lot of things happened because of the ambassador here doing his best. if you look on russian media, you don't get negative press on america as because of character and how things can develop. i think a lot you do about russ here. generally speaking, i don't think it is a great situation. i don't know how hopeless for us to change the situation. i hope new generation will try to challenge this and in 10 or 15 years, we will have new discussions about missile differences. because it is up for discussion after 10 years, 20 years. still discussing how many missiles they have over each other, and it is insulting. and this very low trade level is insulting for two big economies. we have to do something. it is a good hink

idea for you young people to think of how you can challenge those three. if he wasn't the best, he wouldn't be there. i think if he wasn't there, the state of relationship between u.s. and russia would be worse. we talk about the same thing znev talked nd bre about 30 years ago -- about soviet space, ukraine. so what is the new agenda? you have new soviet union, new russia. america is moving somewhere, who knows where, so what is your agenda? strategically -- i am interested strategically in u.s.-russian relations. i don't see it. it is like a reaction from a reaction. white house does something, kremlin does something. it is short-distance running. it is like two sprinters running in different directions and trying to reach each other, to

please each other, i don't know. i have disfaction on u.s.-russian relations. there is no strategic vision. yonl i don't know from myself if it is capable to introduce a strategic relations. it is probably business for much younger people. that's why i want you guys to be here. now we have time for your questions. please come over to the microphones and introduce yourself and ask your questions. please do. but before -- while you are thinking about your questions, as the moderator i am going to se my my rights. ambassador, my question is, it ems to me that after the break-up of the soviet union,

russian foreign policy -- correct me if i am wrong -- russian policy toward america always was a reaction on what washington does. you look at everything in russian foreign they given this. they have to react. they do in the ukraine. in a missileut defenses. they do this in syria. they do this in iraq. they do this in iran. never, i could be wrong again. russianer seen relations a by moscow. what can moscow offer? a --moscow can offer is for a well at least. for a change.

leaving the country in bilateral changes. yearyear, russia and next will be a part of g-8. russia will be in chairman. the year before, a chairman of the pacific. years, russia was shaping global agenda. do we have it? i do not think so. again, the state department and you guys mentioned and basically what the united states cannot. i am not arguing. on the what russia has table. that is what they bring on the table. it will be much more proactive bilaterally. thank you. that is my first question. >> thank you. all, i like the idea of challenging.

[indiscernible] agreeof all, i do not that russia was reacting to whatever the united states did. a fresh example of syria. --artnership no, no. it was discussed along before. simply nobody knew how to deal with that. it took audacity. we are working together. iran, we are little bit ahead of the united states on the negotiating trail. remember myself trying to convince some american colleagues to be actually part of the negotiations.

finally, we saw the united states to be active and it critically constructive. we also have a number of ideas for g-8 that is going to be discussed. we did conduct pretty successful meetings. but once again, you contradicted your first argument that everybody is looking for drama and russia. >> the ambassador. [indiscernible] [laughter] is, we i am suggesting had an agenda that was well coordinated with the united the year before.

because a lot of things -- thatly that means needs to take years and years to negotiate and i find it very encouraging that we were able to work together and we were preparing for trying to understand each other's priorities in a way that will be reinforcing each other. sometimes we do not appreciate it very much. i believe a political specialist . to navy, reaction expansion and defense. what is the difference with united states is not the point weapons to the borders, it is -- countries that are

important to the united states. within expansion in europe. -- we are seeing an expansion in europe. what has developed is providing security for the members and the others. lineseans we are dividing , moving toward the east. and is not us. it is nato moving to us. so far, relations between the russians have not developed to the extent we feel very much relaxed about. however, there are things that are developing it in this relations that is good. i was the first russian ambassador to the secretary-

general of nato. i remember the high expectations of the moment for the development. it did not materialize. why, i cantion as to have a separate event. what i am suggesting is, the reality of such it's not toward viewed and saved, the united states and their allies with military assets toward us. agreement for an the european security. looking for an interesting onponse and an arrangement an equal basis. dividing mind security in europe far from the russian

borders. yes, sometimes we have to react. relations and the infirm and around us and sometimes we have to take steps to ensure our security -- and the relationships around us and sometimes we have to take steps to ensure our security. >> thank you for the question. i will ask our american diplomats. -- if i years in washington 25 years in washington, we talked about u.s.-russia and global world, is constant talk. you hear american expert or diplomat or politician talk about russia. it is usually, we do not know what did these guys are going to do. we have no idea.

well no idea what to do to rush. no idea what to do to putin. -- we have no idea what to do to russia. weirdms to me very because i never hear so many things about other countries. steve, when it comes to russia, it's like there is no clue what to do. it is very strange. you could talk to him. you go to moscow to talk to everybody. it is an easy place to go now. verynot think putin is a difficult guy to understand his concept of his vision, it is very clear. what is the problem? why can't americans establish strategic with russia?

i dislike -- it is like proposition after proposition. soviet union was a predictable country. it was stable. why? inc., -- think, nikolai, some of the have to do the frustration of the daily flow of events and not stepping back. some of it has to do with the failure in effect to go back to some of the major objectives. i think we always out to russia should be a full member of the international community. should be partia of the world economy. go played a to get w role. we wanted cooperation with russia on a number of areas.

the joint contribution we both made to international strategic stability was much appreciated and very significant. the fact was over 80 pe -- over time, we had different opinions. many of them dictated by a different perception of what the other side was doing. in my own view, there is no greater strategic secret to what the u.s. would like to see with respect to the future. we gave you three pounds. -- we gave you three principles. i do not think they have dramatically changed. my feeling is we could enjoy a better communication. a we could enjoy a process of fewer surprises. perhaps a process of even more exchanges and

travel than we have before. and we could enjoy a process of what i would call d ecoldwarization. suspicion on both sides is still there. a number of us as we go around our country, usually the third or fourth question is premised by seeing the soviet union x and it really means russia. it is still the soviet union. i can tell you and russia there is a counterpart which is nato. anyway stands for a kind of cold syndrome that still hangs on. -- theyus has our own crave employment. i do not know they added to the

clarity, openness, and indeed positiveness that one ought to have. do.ians of course, we know that by definition. a by practice somehow it seems to fall short. are thevent, those kinds of things that are out there. a very independent man. i am not sure he's totally predictable at least nine eyes of the united states. maybe russians consider president obama the same way. sure we are totally at sea with respect to russia. from time to time, we find interesting and different and sometimes shocking and sometimes helpful as we have characterized tonight. >> let me add a couple of comments. i would agree. russia is understanding

is not as bad as you portray. respond to a couple. there's still a significant overhang from the cold war. some of the people still think the russia and they think of the soviet union. was --o issue and when i we are processing nato at that time we sought to build relational that we hoped would diffuse russian anxieties about the nato enlargement. in retrospect, we underestimate how hard it would be. -- it was demand driven. requests from central europe that sought nato as being part of europe. my guess is for variety of reasons nato enlargement is pretty much off the table. entered the military aspect, we are going to see this and nato-

russia. the military's are all going down pretty quickly. i was kind of surprised when last year, the american battle tank left europe. that key element of land power, the united states have zero those and europe right now. some thee have to move boogie man of the past. the other part is, both countries there are limitations imposed by domestic politics. there innfortunately the american congress and anti- russian bias. i will set out a couple of examples. the jackson amendment continued to apply to russia more than a decade after russia met the requirements stop i tried back

in 2003 and two cannot get congress to move. and we cannot get congress to move. it was totally important. when congress passed an act that singled out russia, there are other countries where there are equal or greater human rights violators. the message sent to russia was messageof outrage, the was the american comes wants to pick on russia. the flipside is there is a certain amount of anti-american sentiment in russia. one of the trouble things i have ford is i inc. the kremlin political reasons have encouraged the idea. there has been this idea of america as a potential adversary which can kate relations. specifically, kate relations in complicates relations in a globally connected world.

house andthe white the state department see some the things being said and it is not put them in a positive mood about russia. , ihink we both operate cannot say we because i am no longer in the government among those working on u.s.-russia more couples made came by the domestic environments in the united states and russia which displays a hangover from the cold war. >> [inaudible] some of them will work and government. [indiscernible] i agree. russian culture and history at mentality. it is american politics. that is my opinion. >> are we going to ask the audience for questions?

we have use 90% of the time. >> ok. >> american university. there a lot of american universities students here today. my question, you all were to close with the leaders of the country. how do you assess the importance of the worship between the man -- of the relation between the men and the kremlin at the man in the white house? is there a risk on the overreliance on personal relationships to the general institutionalization of the relationship between the countries? relations personal are always important in business and politics and everywhere especially when it comes to the leaders of these two countries. needed for said

for most of -- first and foremost is for people to be honest and truthful of what they are going to say to each other and do and be able to hear each other. enjoyed that kind of understanding even when there are differences between us. sometimes quite significant, the ability of leaders to talk honestly and to the point has not changed. add the reason the battle between institutionalization and leaders, there is synergy. which good institutional relationships helped prepare leaders for conversations and talks is very important. and my sense is that the ability of the institutional relationships which are

essential the embassies of foreign ministries and conversational organizations we have together to examine everything from military is all valuable and very significant and added to the agenda. they cannot overcome obviously crises of the moment. they can add it what i call a continuing basis which can be built upon. areas feeling is in some such as steve out lied perhaps and the middle east where we have a common interest as seems to fit world needs where the two of us can stand together on a very difficult problem and help change minds. that is of the highest order. and to me, that helps to move some of the bumps. were we have only negatives, resort to a policy of ankle kicking.

and where we are engaged in ankle kicking is then panders to the domestic opposition on each side which steve described. that is what a leaders have to find a way to overcome. that anklebelieve kicking with each other is the key to their domestic success, we are going to see the relationship miss used -- misused and pushed down. there've been times when it has been unfortunately the way in which people have perceived it. paramount.aders are they can overcome and they can add a lot of extra noise into the system if they choose to do so. it is the institutional relation that produces ideas and agreements and i think response to their interests of moving things hopefully forward.

>> i would second that. personal relations have an impact. first and foremost is national interest and institutional relationships. a good relationship between the american president and the russian president can help. i would not overestimated that. , for when irances was in the u.s. government for the first couple of years, there was a very positive chemistry between george w. bush and vladimir putin. if you look at the american 2003- relationship from 2008, it has declined. you have a very positive relationship but it was not able to arrest that. relationships, human beings count. i would not overestimated it.

>> can you hear me? i am from the region and the seat. -- embassy. it made me wonder, some of the problem with the lack of progress between the relations between russia and the u.s. is in the u.s. is synonymous with washington as with russia we talk about moscow. what is being done to enhance relations between cities? the cities seem to be less burdened by world politics. in russia, they are getting more autonomous. what is the development on that? russia's a lot more than moscow of course. u.s. isuld say that the more than washington as well.

variety ofith a circumstances. we stand to gain by developing more of region to region partnerships and ties. something that needs to be developed we are trying to the government to encourage relations with seen the number of regional -- meeting with people. it is still something that we want to develop significantly more including the kind of decisions to students who would leave with their peers. today, there is [inaudible] before we can say we are satisfied at the level.

we are so close. it is only three kilometers between us. we have the closest neighbor of united states except for canada and mexico. added -- weuld've for had to at a conference airlines to get them to fly. you would be surprised. over --d have to fly -- theson relations reason relations and we are trying to do that. i hope we see more of the american side as well. >> let me be frank. --have perhaps is to today instituted many were exchanges from the u.s. side. they cannot work without cooperation from russia.

this was very much the idea beginning in the late 1980's that carried on and even before that. when i was the ambassador and russia, the russian students and others who were part of exchanges including jim billington which reaches out all over russia and brings the russians here and americans to russia, they organized their own alumni. none of it has been perfect. these have been in large measure supported by are carried out through ngo's. we'll see the recent russian crackdown on ngo's and the foreign agents as a real impediment to being able to carry this forward. i do not think it represents a corporation. i hope ever present only -- represent only a short phase in

russia relations. i hope will find a way to move it ahead. i inc. as you pointed out from , it is thosece kind of human relationships, something i mention early, as being very important. [laughter] >> [indiscernible] >> the moderator is here. think there's a lot of potential for these sorts of exchanges they go to areas outside of washington and moscow and help break down some the stereotypes from both countries. ago, there is no service between anchorage and -- their lines headed that in the 1990's. that is unfortunate.

the airlines had invented back in the 1990's. or 1997, back to 1996 i had a colleague that guy invited to a conference in anchorage. he said you have no idea what is going on between alaska and russia. he said we had no idea in washington where at the regional level they had set up lots of cultural andrms of business and educational terms. someone would've to figure way to clear the environment were contacts prosper where the two governments in washington a forow no longer contract these actions. that is going to begin to really change how the two countries look at one another. >> i would like to add something. the next point. talking about times where better conditions --

>> to invite russians here. >> it was done on the money congress allocated specifically. it was not political. the current situation has changed. there are a number of programs currently that are not available to bring americans to russia. there are a number of programs owned by the government. and also, a number that is new to us, private initiatives is wonderful programs and it brings young professionals and give them the opportunity to work for the i meet with these people from time to time. it is a very interesting program. my hope is to expand it.

is irgument on ngo's disagree. policy -- there is a policy to make it more transparent. as to whose agenda when it comes to political discourse in russia. certainly we can compare it to what we have and that is transparency. things in doing political life in russia, the money comes from other countries you need to say, you need to be transparent and people needed to understand what is on the agenda and whose agenda you are pursuing. there is more crackdown and more transparency. [indiscernible]

ngos.t the russian they also comply with the legislation. there are number of prohibitions for foreign participation. connection.es in compare theto system. and open arms. >> thank you. two separate but related questions. mentioned exercises over targeting terrorism and you mentioned in a more negative light each country

potentially deducting clear indication between the two countries. in the aftermath of the bombing in boston, there was a lot of outreach on the russian side to the american saying we can have cooperation in this sphere. bombing., there was a in the lead up to the sochi olympics, what is the state of security cooperation between ?ussian and american forces has there been progress since boston and is there real communication that will make american companies who will be thatchi more comfortable there won't be a terrorist attack there? question,y second what sort of granular

achievements do you hope will come about in the relationship as a result of the sochi olympics? broad,sed to sort of broad, broad positives. >> thank you. as to the achievements of sochi, we are determined to win. [laughter] secondly, it is partnership and friendship that are important. i think this environment will be dominated in sochi. issues inurity general and sochi in particular, i would say that the relationships between special -- how efficient they are is not for me to decide, to estimate. , thew that terrorism spread of nuclear weapons,

fighting narcotic traffic, there is a very practical cooperation. not theoretical exchanges but people working on a particular issue. we can use in the future more of that. reality shows that we can. i hope it is going to continue to develop further. in sochi, people who specialize in security -- bill jones, executive intelligence review. i would like to mention the beautiful wagner quote that you had was attributed to mark twain. i said that as a canadian from missouri to give him credit where credit is due. i would like to ask about one of the areas of cooperation. cooperation in space. the latest of course with the space station. remain. and russia still

the preeminent space powers. they are no longer alone. you can still consider them preeminent. both of them have problems. russia has problems with the proton rocket and there is a lack of vision in the sequestration which is hitting nasa today. that still remains an area of cooperation. we have a new item on the which is the asteroid threat. buton't see that too often it does occur every now and then. it will continue to occur as we go down the road. our ability to deal with this is our space capabilities and developing those capabilities. russia has made that the defense against asteroids the prime aspect of their space program according to statements just the other day from the new head of ruscosmos.

and the u.s. is trying to land a man on astro that there. at any rate, they are aware of the danger. the russians have made a proposal to have a specific which isf cooperation called strategic defense of the earth in dealing with this. it seems to me that russia and the u.s. have always cooperated best not over issues of just common concern but over what they used to call the common aims of mankind. i think this asteroid threat doesn't threaten just our countries, but the entire earth, similar to what is going on in syria that is the common name of mankind. shouldn't there be some form of collaboration where this area, which always gets the public attention in spite of the fact that we have been in space so many years, there is always an interest in this, to make that a center of cooperation between russia and the united states? >> thank you. quite a question. -- something that

is a fantastic candidate for russian-american participation. enjoyed unparalleled cooperation on the space program. i do not know any other area of cooperation where the partnership is so tight. occurrence.y i have visited russian .osmonauts training in houston in russia when i saw american astronauts, they know each other. brotherhoodf a because they do the same mission. they know what they are tasked to do by the two countries. our interests fully coincide, fully coordinated. when you have problems with

, it wasn't aams long discussion in the united states whether you can rely on russians or not to ensure access to space. they knew each other. easilyew that they can and reliably work together. is to what they are doing on the space tatian. it is unprecedented. it is something they already take for granted. i would say there is some normalcy in our relations. is outer space cooperation an indication of how it needs to be done. -- itt comes to the ideas captures the imagination.

it is something that our space agency has been pondering for quite a while. it is not only yesterday that they came up with this. i know that we were interested and are interested in partnerships with the united states. paceed to understand what the program is going to be adopted. in russia, what other kinds of the united's dates before they can coordinate? i do it, personally. it is my point of view. we stand to benefit from working together on this issue. >> [indiscernible] i think that space operations are so complex and so expensive and so much in the joint countries' interest that it makes sense to cooperate. >> we have more questions. try to keep it short. >> ben parkins, american

university of massachusetts. last few years, russia has been a great power and a superpower. there was a loss of status with the breakup of the soviet union. that loss of diplomatic military power affected russian foreign policy? is there a desire to reclaim that to some extent? how has that affected the u.s., the state department of'-- state department's attitude toward russia? ok, american university. who wants to start? [laughter] >> first, i would take issue as thehether we have lost status of superpower. the whole notion of superpower is something that needs to be

defined. summary of to you a the report by the research service of the u.s. congress. it is about russia. what russia presents to the united states. is still a nuclear superpower. influences thea interest of national security of ,he united states and europe the middle east and asia. it is not me. it is them. russia plays a very important role in arms control, nonproliferation and the fight against terrorism. owns natural resources scope greater range and

than anybody else including the united states. i recommend that you read it. >> 30 years ago, we would have all known that. >> [inaudible] say is that i think the congressional research arvice probably has provided fair and interesting estimate of the situation. i don't think there is any lost interest in the state department or in the united states. i think there are other countries that we know of including china that are gathering strength as well. they are becoming part of the panoply of world powers that we all have to deal with. to some extent, that may have diminished the bipolar nature of the cold war relationship and the pulsed -- post-cold war era. we are in a multipolar world.

not all poles are evil. -- equal. butall entries are equal those that play in the larger field are significantly more important. each of us is trying to develop a set of relationships that deals with that. there is quite a complex web as we go ahead. i don't think that u.s., russia, china, any set of individual to the two against one phase that kids succumb to. i think in many ways, these presents some very unusual and unique challenges. i don't dispute the conclusions of the congressional research service that are gay read-out -- segey read out/

. >> i think as the congressional research service makes important points and important questions on which interests intersect and conflict. i think the nature of the relationship is a friend -- different than the relationship the twin the u.s. and the soviet union 30 years ago. part of that reflects the rise of other countries. china, india and others. at the if you look american president's agenda, i think the american president today probably spends less time thinking about russia than his counterpart back in the 1980's did with regards to the soviet union. >> good afternoon. for two years at saint petersburg state university and interned at the u.s. embassy in moscow.

hear that you are promoting student exchanges. there is a lot that i learned there that i wouldn't have got by staying here. my question today is whether or not you think the addition of a group like nato or the eu within u.s.-russia relations might be beneficial to bring different perspectives to the table and maybe ease negotiations in terms of, specifically, nuclear negotiations and reductions. or if you think it might just create more problems. >> i don't know. >> first of all, there are negotiations and there are negotiations. we address the weapons of these two countries like the ones that

have led to the conclusion of the treaty to reduce strategic weapons. we treat that as being successful. the relations for our european colleagues are not only legitimate but a very central part of it. land that is important to us because russia is europe. the united states also is part the framework of the conventional weapons regulation agreements. europe certainly needs to bring all of us together. p5+1 --europeans: i think 3+3

because there are three european countries there. there are a number of issues where we can and do work together with the europeans and i think that in many instances 5+1, we take the lead in these gnocchi nations -- negotiations. >> countries willing to participate are prepared to make compromises and have things to offer as well as things to receive. bringing people into negotiations because they may have different ideas is a little bit more than awkward and it begins to create the notion that you are bringing in lawyers for one side or the other to convince the problem. hashink that as sergey ah

areaed out, and another where we have multilateral negotiations, we are all there together trying to find answers to a set of problems. i think it would be a serious mistake in u.s.-russian bilateral negotiations at this stage with respect to further reduction of strategic offensive vehicles and nuclear weapons. as steve said, i think sooner rather than later, people holding nuclear weapons but maybe not at the same level that we do need to be part of a process of transparency. this is an interesting comment on what your suggestion is arease it takes us into an where they may not yet be able to be part of the compromises. they need in some ways to be habituated to the method of thinking in which the process

went. there is the reverse of your point. might have players something to help them understand rather than the other way around. >> i would comment on the process of nuclear reductions. it seems that a bilateral negotiation by definition is going to be easier. 'swould also agree with sergey point that this process has to become multilateral. you could do that one more u.s.-russian negotiation that could bring total u.s. and russian nuclear weapons down to maybe 2000. that is still seven times larger than anybody else. maybe you start with baby steps. you ask the british, french and chinese. give us transparency. what is the total number of weapons you have? then, go a further step and say,

we are not going to ask you to negotiate a reduction or even a legally binding limitation. but could you take on as a unilateral political commitment that you will not increase the number of your weapons as long as the united states and russia are coming down? to get to that point, your next step has to be more of a multilateral negotiation. >> [indiscernible] everybody talks about missile defense which is agreeable. your question please. >> my name is emily smith. can you hear me? interested in the differences in american and russian worldviews and how it impacts our relations. in other words, how we think ourerently is affecting engagement and contributing to this drama that we see reflected in the media.

this question is for ambassador kislyak. i was hoping you could tell me what in your opinion our differences and our worldviews and mentalities. can the powers do to better understand and engage with russian policymakers? thank you. >> that is quite a question because it requires an hour of explanation. i will try to be very brief. --emember one conversation we were discussing differences in the world perception that some americans have. i remember telling him that when we discuss in russia what we can multilateral format, the language we use is that we in the united nations will do that and that.

we will pursue in the united nations with other countries that initiative. look at the american mileage. we can work with the united nations. that creates trouble for us. we all have to abide by the same rules. all are part of the organization and the system it created. we created it together. for us, what is important is that all the relations develop on equal talking and the base of international agreements. >> ok, the last question please. [indiscernible]

i got my documents in belarus. i am organizing several meet up groups. i want to start with the idea which a norwegian person brought. he said that the relationships president --h the but i want to continue. american constitution starts not with "we, the president," it starts with "we, the people." he might be right, but other speakers talked about people and

relationships [indiscernible] since i am organizing these teach the i happen to -- introduce russian culture. personally i train 16 u.s. pilots of the marine corps to speak russian. biasld say yes, there is a in the general population. together. we stand , so forth.movies so i am getting back to the point. since i was raised in the soviet and i'm at the end of the

soviet union, i understand the power of russian soviet bureaucracy. maybe russians and heritage something from that. for me, if i want to enhance, to help these people to people .xchanges, not just travels right now it could be conferencing or roundtables doing business in russia, so forth. , let's say, from the russian embassy, where should they go? to what person? which magic words i need to say? if i just go to russian cultural

center, they will say, why are you here? no one called us. what should i do and what should -- kind ofrms of like a guidance. [indiscernible] >> you know, it is changes. be well planned and organized. i have seen a number of programs during my years here. some of them were very successful. others less so. first and foremost, we have to parties on both sides that are interested in thisxc