i think the ambassador has given us a broad and comprehensive overview of both the progress and the perils that he sees with respect to developments in some only in somalia. we can all measure the progress. i think you have outlined some of the clear things that have been done. the warning flags for difficulties ahead are also quite clear. nick, i want to personally thank

you for being with us this morning. with us here at the united states institute of peace. we are committed to trying to

>> today, a panel discussion hosted by the "washington post." include barton gelman. that collected metadata on americans phone records. tonight at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs of ants washington directly to you about putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences. offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, rated by the cable industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or semi-provider.

watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> on monday, the heritage -- held a hold it conference on russian politics and influence. panelists talked about the effectiveness of government backed media broadcasts like voice of america. this is just under two hours. >> welcome.

we would ask everyone here if you will check that cell phones have been turned off. it would be appreciated as we prepare to begin. our internet viewers are always welcome to send questions or comments, simply e-mailing us. hosting our discussion today is a senior fellow for public a douglas and sarah allison center for foreign and national security policy. she is a media fellow at the hoover institution, she also serves on the board of visitors at the institute of political journalism and the center for free inquiry at hanover college in indiana. please join me in welcoming hello dale.

as a look at a highly eastern situation in ukraine and presidential elections coming up in may, these efforts by russia, i think we can all say can be trusted to intensify. the russian actions against crimea and eastern ukraine have awakened the world to val -- to vladimir putin's efforts to re-create past russian influence. every onee is using of the means at his disposal, going beyond military power.

for new sources of being blocked, pro-russian ngos are being established throughout the former republics and russian ethnic minorities and neighboring states are bombarded with russian language media from moscow. the on that, in crimea and eastern ukraine, russian special units are igniting separatist interest. meanwhile, from the american if, we they should say it all, have secretary of state john kerry and vice president joe biden spearheading u.s. support for ukraine. terriblyn't find that confidence inspiring, then i am with you. we have today with those three truly eminent experts on russia and the soviet union. keen observers of russian behavior, past and present. our first speaker will be john

.ynch how ski from 1991-19 93, he served in the state department in the --eau of european affairs 1981-1983. and from 1983-87, he was direct to your of european and soviet affairs at the national security council. in that capacity he served as the principal soviet affairs advisor to president reagan. with manyn associated academic and research institutions, but he is certainly best known as the ofnder of the institute world politics on 16th street, and eminent school of foreign , the graduate school which is spearheaded many of the efforts on strategic communication, public diplomacy and studies of foreign

propaganda. we are absolutely thrilled you're here with us today. much, it is aery -- i have great admiration for them and maybe we have too of a society of mutual admiration here. has asked me if i would give a little bit of a background on russian propaganda and also soviet propaganda and how some of the themes and ways and means of this propaganda related to what is going on today. tradition,long obviously, and the 20th century, that the soviets perfected to a science.

spectrum ofentire activities that went from ordinary conventional public cultural diplomacy, sports diplomacy, and other things like that, that were designed for purposes of , tohological disarmament ordinary information policy ,hich was heavily manipulated andng the truth with lies using the truth as it serves their purposes and twisting it in classic rock again to stick classic-- in propagandistic fashion. it refers to disinformation, forgeries and covert political influence operations. all sorts ofd things such as provocations,

front organizations, agents of influence that were placed in foreign newspapers, in foreign parliaments and in foreign governments. -- givene a number of that the kgb may have been split up into a couple of different organizations but never really reformed, given that the kgb was heavily involved in these types ofactive measures operations, there is a tremendous institutional memory within russia today about how this was done during soviet days . unfortunately we have stopped tracking these kinds of things in the u.s. government. in the 80's, when i was serving there, we had a soviet active notures working group which

only our intelligence community, but also our diplomatic community collected information about soviet disinformation themes and how they were related oath to covert influence operations and to ordinary propaganda. upstudied what we had picked . we declassified information which we had analyzed. we disseminated it to other government agencies, to editorial boards, to foreign governments, in order to sensitize people of what the soviets were doing.

i simply ask, how do you know realityperceiving correctly if you don't know how your perceptions can be managed by any number of actors, friends or foes. this is an essential subject for the study of international relations, and i think it is a sign of huge, both professional and academic, malpractice but this is a subject that is good so systematically ignored, except in a few corridors around the country like ours at iw p that study these things. i wanted briefly to review a couple of the classic methods of soviet propaganda and disinformation, which have been carried on by the russians in

the modern era. we in the united states, not having collected information on this, nor having said this in a systematic nor having studied this in a systematic fashion, are blissfully unaware. there are examples of neighboring countries, not least of which are ukraine, where people were living there are very familiar with soviet active measures and now russian active measures, and who were in the of and who actually exposes things, charge the russians are doing these things. this was long before these recent events. ukrainianaring accusations against russia concerning active measures back latee early, mid and

1990's. one of the most essential elements of russian strategy and soviet strategy is to define the terms of debate. any good debater knows that he who defines the terms of debate is halfway towards winning. -- the soviets did this and also set of classic fashions. they were for peace, we were for . they were for disarmament, we were for arms race. they were for security, we were aggressors who were creating etc. they'retc., doing the same thing today by identifying the ukrainian government as fascists and nazis , of course blackening the image of their opponents is standard operating procedure. they're saying that this is

betweenly a battle them, the good guys, the answer fascists inhe nazi kiev. in the crimean referendum, there were signs saying, basically asing this conflict out russia versus the nazis. effort part of his involves distracting people posit attention from the issue distracting people's attention from the issue at hand. one of the ways that russian propaganda has been doing this, especially insofar as united states has been involved, has been to accuse us of illegally invading iraq, of attempting to co-opt all sorts of people around the world who question

the legality and the prudence of .ur invasion of iraq in any event, there are other kinds of games like that, but suffice it to say that this is one of the major elements. accuser adversaries of doing exactly what they do, namely covert action. they are accusing us of it, they're accusing kiev of covert it is in the east when precisely their own provocateurs had been involved in infiltrating the country and engaging in these types of riling up demonstrations, staged protests. the semantics are another key technique in all of this. one of thesay that

elements in this, and there are many different dimensions. you may have seen some recent reports about the use of which they're claiming to be russian territory. then, there are certain other themes. one of them is that moscow is paranoid. his is a classic soviet strategic deception theme. it is designed to get everybody in the west to believe that we cannot -- we have to handle moscow with kid gloves, we cannot provoke them too much, we cannot resist what they're doing or else it will provoke them and make things worse. then, there is the effort to try to co-opt sympathizers among the enemy. what is remarkable is the degree utin'sch pollutants -- p

moral values and anti-lgbt campaign has managed to attract -- socialof socially conservatives, not only in the united states but particularly there is soea and much more about these themes that can be said. i am sure my colleagues will say -- will address a number of them. i would like to deal very briefly with what united states should do. as i mentioned before, i think it is essential that we as a government and and academic institutions, think tanks, do more analysis of this field. that thelly delighted heritage foundation has seen fit to have this forum, to cast some light on this issue.

this is a classic issue that shouldn't just be reserved for crisis moments. it is something that goes on all the time in so many of the different conflicts around the world, whether it is the middle east or radical islamism or china. these are fertile fields for analysis. the next thing i think the united states has to do is have a voice of truth. of our shut down so many public diplomacy capabilities in this country. we shut down the united states information agency in what i call a bipartisan fit of absence of mind in 1999. i think it was all supposed to be very efficient and we were going to -- we folded a shadow of usia's former capacity where ignored.s

it is not something that is your ticket to being a secretary of state. we have a diplomatic culture in and not a serious soft power culture. i would say that the u.s. army has a greater sensitivity to soft power than the department of state does. mindserstands hearts and operations, having recognized the vital necessity of these sorts of things on the battlefronts, and iraq and afghanistan. it understands cultural diplomacy and understand it to be a more -- a strategic instrument of american power. ishave a huge part of this our international broadcast. radio, television and obviously

internet are the only unfiltered information that we can get into the minds of millions and millions of people around the world. all other information that we transmit is filtered by the governments that control the trulyas does russia extraordinary extent that it has started to do. we have shut down the voice of america, russian and ukrainian broadcasts over short wave. we barely had an imprint, an am .tation i don't know why the bbq was unable to renew the a.m. station that we had in moscow, but a subcontractor of the pbg fails to renew the contract, and then president putin shut the thing down. i do know where the responsibility lies.

in any event, the pbg, the broadcasting board of governors, which runs the voa, radio free europe, radio liberty, radio free asia and others, is a dysfunctional agency, which has unpaid,of bipartisan, volunteer commissioners who, only part-time, and who edges -- and who exercise executive authority. -- and the secretary of state is a member of this , but is effectively in absentia. that thet is bureaucracy there is effectively unaccountable. this is a board that does not report to anybody when it comes to being consistent with, in the

case of the voice of america, voa broadcasts have to be consistent with the foreign policy of the united states. the surrogate radios, the freedom radios that serve a separate mission from the voice of america, like radio free europe, radio liberty, act as a surrogate to mastech free press for countries denied free media. these are entirely separate missions. they are worthy, both of them, of being pursued. they are extremely cheap. the pbg tried to shut down all broadcast to china in mandarin and in cantonese on the grounds that short wave is an obsolete legacy technology. 290 then, did beijing by

shortwave transmitters in the last couple of years? because shortwave is beijing's favorite and most effective method of communicating with its own people. shortwave gets to the audience. you can listen to radio anonymously. -- these radio broadcasts and tv broadcasts have been incrementally junked g, as if everybody is going to be on the internet and as if there aren't million of internet police in a place like , as of internet sites can be blocked or the entire web can't be shut down. in any event, we have to start getting serious about getting

alternative -- an alternative , ane out there in the world entire overhaul of strategic medications. my solution for this is to make the voa and the freedom radios, the surrogate radios and television stations have their own independent directors that report ultimately to the white house, to the white house security council. there are different ways of structuring this. reasonable people can disagree, but they have to be accountable. i also believe that we should set up a new u.s. public where we folded in all of the public diplomacy functions of the u.s. government entered one big empire so that they would ultimately be taken seriously in this agency. i believe that 50% of all ambassadorships should come out of that agency, and then people

would start taking public diplomacy seriously. thank you. you for that intervention on behalf of u.s. public diplomacy. i know there are lots of talks about reform efforts in this field and maybe one of these next few days or months we will have another meeting. now let me introduce our next who at theul goebel, moment is a guest lecturer at the institute on world politics. that is not by any means his only reason for being here. is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in eurasia. he has served as the director and dean in various capacities at the buzzer by john -- at the

the azerbaijant university. prior to joining the faculty in -- he workedas with various parts of the u.s. government. the central intelligence agency, the state department, as well as voice of america root, radio free europe and radio liberty. he has frequently worked in ethnic and religious issues, and has been an advisor to the latvia, andestonia, lithuania, during the drive for independence from the soviet union. he is extremely well-qualified to give us that point of view. paul, over to you. hela has asked me to speak

about the fraught relationship between moscow and ethnic russians outside of the russian federation. i would do that, but i cannot resist adding to john's very insightful comments that those of you who are going to become interested in the issue of countering what the russians are doing in the propaganda and disinformation wars, nature of america's leading specialist on disinformation in the past and whose works continue to be important. she said three things which are relevant to our discussion today. the first is that the worst problem in international relations is that everyone tries to project and others what they are themselves. it is not only a problem with the russians do it, it is everyone's doing and we tend not to see it will we do it ourselves. where this was summarized by natalie years ago was, the u.s.

census soviet union diplomats and they treat them like spies. -- wed the soviet union sent diplomats and they choose like spies. they send a spies and we treat them like diplomats. the second thing is that the problem is far worse than many people think. most of the statements that vladimir putin and his friends make today are outright lies. to counter.rly easy it is a much more serious threat in the case of misinformation. as natalie wrote some years ago, this information is mostly true is mostlyrmation true. you put in one or two falsehoods and that has enormous consequences. it requires enormous resources to find out very is easy to deal with blatant lies, but do not think that the blatant lies of the only challenge out there. grant road, natalie

dealing with the question of disinformation and efforts to influence, one has to realize that this is a long-term problem that you cannot dip in and dip out the united states is increasingly short-term in its approach, and that means we come in and we don't see what has been going on. we don't understand how much we have been manipulated already by having ignored the first 4.5 acts of a five act play. what is going on in eastern ukraine today is nothing especially new in some regards all stopped in other ways, it is a serious change and we will talk about that. one of the things i've seen was a report in august of 1998 when the russian ruble collapsed. because it was collapsing, citizens of the russian federation rushed to spend their

rubles because -- so that they would have goods because the ruble would not be worth anything. the tragedy was in the city of us -- was in estonia, there were russian ethnic speakers rushing to the store to buy goods with hard estonia and crohn's because they have been washing -- watching russian tv and did not make the distinction between the estonian currency which was hard currency and the russian currency that had collapsed. very often, even reporting that may be accurate has consequences when it is put into a new context that people are not paying attention to. i would like to very quickly cover three things with you. first, i would like to say something about the tragedy which is inherent in the russian state and the russian people and has been for at least 700 years, which goes to the issue of who

is russian and who is not. second, i want to focus specifically on why moscow approach the so-called ethnic russians between 1991 and 2010 one way and why vladimir putin has made a bet in the other direction now. in some respect, what putin has done is to violate even the rules of the game that moscow had sort of accepted after the settlement of the end of the soviet union. and third, i would like to make comments at the end, following -- four or five comments at the end following my usual approach about what we have got to do now. we have certain capacities that we can run up very rapidly and there are other things that we better be ready for if we care about the future. the tragedy of the russian people and the russian state can

be expressed in a single sentence. and that is, that the russian state became an empire before the russian people became a nation. it had an enormous number of consequences, one of which, of course, means that the russian state has never been a nationstate. it has always been an imperial one. and on the other hand, it means that ethnic russians have always been defined by the state rather than themselves. when we say ethnic russian, we act as if we are talking about a category that is at the same level as the category of the irish or the germans or the french. it is simply not true. these are categories defined by the state. and it is defined by the state for very particular reasons. the second point -- that first point is that general process. and the second is that the state has always defined who is a

russian and who is not. and one of the things that has been terribly important in the last few weeks is vladimir putin cost people realize how weak -- vladimir putin's people realize how weak ethnic identification really is. it is a fact that russian identity is extraordinarily weak. russian national identity is far weaker than the national identities of any of the central asian nations. that is something that will not be accepted by people in this city, because if you were trained as a soviet specialist to my you were trained as a russian specialist. and in fact, you were trained as a moscow specialist, which means you only passed the ring road to get the sure match at the airport. russian identity is very weak because of a series of policies first under the empire, then under the soviets, and more recently now. under the empire, the czars did

all they could, including never asking the question of your ethnicity, never, not once. they knew that the non-russians were more numerous and that the russian state did not have the capacity to will place together, unless it kept the russians from mobilizing as an ethnic community. under the soviets, there was a faustian bargain under which ethnic russians got to run things, but only as long as they denied they were doing it. it truncated nationality. since then, the russian federation has been seriously has been seriously compromised in its ability to allow the emergence of ethnic identity because the russian state inside the russian federation, recognizing that, that is the quickest way to crumble look roman.

if you get russian nationalism at home, you get the end of the russian federation. second, if you allow russian nationalism to develop, not only will you develop non-russian nationalism, but it will require kind of state authority, the authoritarianism that will preclude economic development. that was the trap that the soviet union found itself in in the 1970's and 1980's when a had to choose between civility and developing. we know that under gorbachev they try to choose develop and edit all came apart. that problem has not gone away. and a third part is critical. that is, the russian government, including vladimir putin are terrified of something we need to talk about. namely, the russian ethnic community, however you want to define it, has ceased to be an assimilated nation and is being

assimilated i others and is breaking into fragments. what that means, of course, is that if you don't get an authoritarian state -- and putin thinks he can outlast that through oil and gas revenue -- you will have siberians, and others, and the ethnic russians outside the federation. my primary subject, are going to drift away. it is only those in moscow and the west that except that language and identity are the same idea that gets russian speakers to ethnic russian to people loyal to moscow. it is simply untrue. in soviet times, there was a great joke. what do you call people who speak three languages? trilingual. what do you call people who speak two languages? bilingual. what you call someone who speaks one language?

an american. we bring this to the table and we think language is identity. nonsense, if you look around the world, you will see many national movement that took off when people stopped speaking the language of the empire, or started speaking it. and it goes in a variety of ways. when the soviet union came apart -- the second part -- when the soviet union came apart in 1994, there was great expectation among people in the west, and some in moscow, that the roughly 25.4 million ethnic russians in the 11 former soviet republics and occupied baltic countries would be people that moscow would reach out to. it did not happen. why? there were two reasons, i think,

one domestic and one foreign. if you promote a russian national strategy at home, it would have led to the further disintegration of the russian federation. because you would have promoted russian nationalism at home and more sales and could not have contained that state. the second is, there was a view of the yeltsin government that the only way that russia could have influence in the neighborhood was by promoting good relations with the government that were headed by different nationalities. promoting ethnic russian nationalism among these non-russian groups, what would that do? it would be viewed as an unfriendly act, as i can testify that the estonians and latvians view that as a nun from the act to this day. consequently, despite a lot of talk about it, moscow did relatively little to play the ethnic card, except in estonia and latvia between 1991 --

between 1991 and 2010, very little. but there was a third reason will stop most of these people did not see themselves as ethnic russians the way we want to see them as ethnic russians, as members of a coherent national community. instead, they saw themselves as speakers of a language. and because their identity had been defined by the state, if the russian state was weak and somebody else was offering a better deal, that is what you should take. i have a picture of a demonstration in the westernmost region of the russian federation from about seven years ago showing a group of russians marching around with signs on which it said, i would rather be a second-class citizen and estonian than a first-class citizen and russian. and these people were russians. what vladimir putin has done is

because he understood that if the only way you can promote that original proposition that i said is with authoritarianism. and he believes he has the capacity to do that. but what he has now done, and this is the real crime in crimea and ukraine, it is a real crime that he must be opposed. he is the first leader since 1945 who has said that ethnicity as he understands it is more important than leadership. it is something that is dangerous to the neighbors of russia. it is dangerous to russia itself because it will lead to its explosion. and it is dangerous to the rest of the world because it will be copied. if you allow the rentable to go unchallenged, as we seem to be unfortunately, that citizenship is not the defining thing, what you will get is the ethnitization of policy.

in 2001, we bought into the idea that there were still bad things, but we assumed they were all sub state actors. what crimea should be a reminder of is that there are evil things in the world and some of them are in states. of the idea that ethnic russians abroad are a coherent group is not true. it is not only not true with ethnic russians who live in is pakistan and estonia and ukraine -- there are enormous differences. the important thing to keep in mind is that those people are disappearing. you may have seen the articles last week in moscow saying, where are the 3 million ethnic russians from ukraine? they disappeared. sure, they decided that they may

speak russian, but they are now identifying not only as ukrainian citizens, but members of a ukrainian civic nation. and that is what happens when you make ethnic identity, as the russian state has, dependent on state power. what do i think we should do? i will go back to three things. first, we have to recognize that the problem we face with moscow is not something moscow's lies, not simply moscow's disinformation directed at ethnic russians abroad, but in the entire structure and in the reporting by russian television to neighboring countries is in in itself a subversive act. and therefore we have to support those governments like latvia and lithuania that have blocked

the distribution of russian television as destabilizing. rather than condemning it as a violation of human rights, which i have heard from people in this town, we've got to support it. second, we have to support, and with money and also provide political cover to the post-soviet states to do something that is extraordinary difficult for them to do and which they have been reluctant to do for obvious reasons. that is, they need to begin producing television and radio programming in russian to make sure that the ethnic russians on their territory do not just look at moscow tv and listen to moscow radio. i was asked by the latvians whether they should shut down moscow television. they said, absolutely, but that is not enough. what you need to do is to create a latvian russian language tv for the russian speakers in latvia, one that they would

rather watch. it is an enormous task, but not impossible. and it is something these government can do if they enjoy the protection, the cover if you like, that our support could provide. and third, we desperately need to expand, revive u.s. international broadcasting. we need to begin broadcasting immediately in crimea and tartar and we can do that. we had crimea into tar -- crimean tartar programming before. they've got the people. we can do it. you've got to revive short wave as a halfway house before we can get up to speed to do direct to home television programming. third under that, we have got to stop buying into russian

definitions of where we broadcast. in the history of u.s. international broadcasting, the united states has never, not once except for one time, broadcast to a region of how moscow divided up the place with other languages. that one exception was in 1986 when briefly, the united states broadcast into ukraine and the russian far east. you may know that in the russian far east there are roughly 3 million to five million ethnic ukrainians. that broadcasting was done from japan. it should be done again. and that is not the only place. i would be happy to talk about where you can do that. we should be taking the bow right back to moscow and we should be broadcasting in a whole bunch of languages that you maybe haven't heard of recently, like gloria -- boryat,

and so on. and the last point, we have to understand that we have richard a world that too many people in this city thought had been permanently put to bed. that is, we are now dealing with denied areas. it is extraordinarily difficult to get information in some places. where areas are denied, where it is difficult to get information -- and the internet is not solve everything, despite the mantra of some people in the 21st century. you need real expertise. you need to spend the time gathering things. i was privileged to work in the research department at liberty and i can tell you how much time it took when these were denied areas to find things. but those are the only kinds of broadcasts that make sense. you cannot short-circuit that by

assuming you can get it all off the internet. that is going to require us not only to restore a research function that we cannot slough off to universities -- it is simply not going to be possible because you have a real-time issue. besides looking at my picture of the russian citizens demonstrating to become second-class citizens of estonia, each morning what i had paced the room i can -- what i 1944, the statement that americans can always be relied on to do the right thing after they've tried everything else. now that we are down to 20% gdp and headed to 10% by the end of this decade, we have to be smart and clever, because we cannot

afford to be wrong with the assumption that we can always catch up. if we do not do something to challenge what moscow is trying to do, we will watch a much more vicious, much more violent war. and we will watch a much more rapid disintegration of a variety of states, including the russian federation. what moscow is doing in crimea will ultimately destroy the russian federation. that story needs to be told, but it will destroy a bunch of other countries too, like those with overseas chinese and those where language and identity are confused. we need to be clear about that and we need to understand that the people around putin are lying, but they also misunderstand what it is about. putin is doing this to justify an authoritarian regime. but just as the soviet union died not because gorbachev

moralize, but because he turned to the right -- liberalized, but because he turned to the right, the russian federation will die because of a turn in the direction. the challenge of the cold war was never just communism. it was soviet russian imperialism in europe. and we are watching russian imperialism once again misusing categories, misusing information. and if we don't counter it now, we will have to later. very last observation, the strength of this country has always been in its soft power, and its ideas and influence, far more than the cemetery strength or economic power. the united states wins when it plays -- far more than the economic strength or military

power. the united states wins when it is put in that position. if we do not promote soft power through broadcasting, through public diplomacy, we will eventually be driven to use hard power and it will cost far more, and be far more difficult, and be far more dangerous to our goals and interests, as well as everyone else's. >> and our final speaker, ariel cohen from the senior research center on russian studies here at the heritage foundation. he joined the heritage foundation in 1992 and earned his doctorate from tufts university in massachusetts. he served in both the executive branch and in the private sector

on policy on russia, the caucasus, and central asia he is also a member on -- of the council on foreign relations, and the association for the study of nationalities. ariel has also appeared on numerous television and media in russia, here, everywhere. >> thank you very much,helle. both of my colleagues here are a difficult act to follow. to me, it is déjà vu all over again, as yogi berra said, because i started in radio free research. i continued with a masters paper at the fletcher school of masters thesis on front organizations as a tool of

soviet power projection in the third world, and then wrote my phd on russian imperialism and development crisis. all of these pieces are coming together and i feel young again. when you listen to the rhetoric coming out of russia, such as "russia is raising from its knees," such as claiming the political opposition as traders --traitors, you shudder. you wonder where this comes from and it is very much the rhetoric of the darkest ages. at the same time, russian russian propaganda, from the head of the institute of democracy out of new york writes

that hitler in 1939 was a brilliant petition, and his russian counterpart says that, "the aryan slavic tribes came down the caspian mountains and conquered the space between the baltic and the pacific." and nothing happens. they are not shut down, like the tv station, like some of the websites have been shut down. and i guess, the political opposition should be happy. i spent yesterday reading the transcript of the five hour vladimir putin a couple of and -- equivalent of what was chartered by the late hugo

chavez by the sms questions. and he said, what do these people want? they are not thrown in a camp like in 1937. i guess they should count their blessings. when you are encountering this new political environment, new notions, some of which were mentioned here, such as nova rosia, the new russia, described 100 years later in the southern and eastern parts of ukraine, this terminology was used in imperial russia. it was describing essentially the national, liberal, and nationalist forces that

overthrew president yanukovych as fascist and blurring the notions of russian speakers and ethnic russians. whereas clearly warning the russian nationalists in the same five hour q&a that the russian people had absorbed many genetic brands or strains, said mr. putin, so that no blood as this is the -- ethnicity should be allowed full tub because that is very dangerous. when you are dealing with this new environment, you also have to look at what the terminology and notions are that are being used as propaganda. for example, what is really the federalization of ukraine?

that is rendering you -- ukraine impotent as a nationstate. it is dictating a constitutional change to a neighboring country. and i'm wondering what federalization would mean for russia itself. as the saying goes, live in glass houses should not throw stones. as estonia and its neighbors produce a good chunk of the diamond production, and others reduce a lot of the oil and gas -- produce a lot of the oil and gas, if they start to control and regulate, the russian federation will not look very good. what are the channels these new notions are being distributed

through? of course, it is russian media, but a new russian media. we remember the russian information agency that was reformed and run for 10 years and underwent a massive change with the appointment of a new leader, a man who, for example, in the same time said that he feels russia is strength related -- strangulated. to which putin said, don't worry, we can strangulate anybody. this is how this is being used and promoted by the

propagandists. we have russia today as a television channel in english, spanish, and arabic. note that there is no russia today in chinese, because the chinese told them they do not want russia today in china. russia today is a channel through which these notions are distributed around the world. the legitimacy of the ukrainian state is totally undermined. mr. putin said twice in his q&a that he sees the new government of ukraine as illegitimate and by the implication that yanukovych is still the legitimate resident. and again, the people who are fighting for separating eastern

and southern ukraine from the rest of ukraine are locals, when it is very clear by the way they bear themselves, by the kind of night scopes and infrared scopes and silencers that they carry on their rifles, these are special forces. made a distinction in crimea there were special denied now in re eastern ukraine it s tphis not special forces. green men or e local activists that could buy scopes in d night every local hardware store. another tactic that russia is local is that the hroe separatists are putting women nd children in front of them

and ukrainian commentator tactic that with the used in gaza by hamas or when they used human front on rooftops or in of schools and shoot rockets these sites and they may responds ause civilian casualties and this is what the local activists re taught or instructed to do so there will be casualties llegedly caused by the ukrainians is. there is a broader litany of the united gainst states that are repeatedly rticulated by russian spokes people. these accusations that there is no international monetary policy

controls over the u.s. dollar and it has no right to be an currency that u.s. violated international law not in iraq but also in ia anistan, kosovo, serb other places and aware the main international law and missile defense is aimed at therefore the united west broadly out ed and almost defined of its legitimacy because of our policies that the russians and russian orthodox not ects, we are tpho essentially a legitimate civilization. terms of the h in termsof civilizations, in

of a global conspiracy theory in ruled by world is not elected governments but by ntelligence services and other conspiracies be it masons, ro -- bankers, rothschilds. that is a propaganda narrative many contemporary russian sources and among russian ideologists. those who did not read recommend ongly nything that the man generates to see, a, how bizarre some of is, onspiracy theories are b it recognize that dugan is positionsly occupying claihair chairmen ma

urrently with the current .airman of the dumas these theories have one problem with them. problem is not that they are wrong. he problem is that people who promulgate them start it believe them and the policy is built on conspiracy theories. to conclude, what can we do? first, i agree with my -- to pay, we need it attention. we need to study the russian ropaganda and the tools that are used to disseminate it and for the life of me i do not and i'm the first to support freedom of the press but don't understand how the russian government shuts down the voice of america, creates a

problems for radio liberty and we have something journalists here on new tied.avenue from russia russia today is a channel that they can invite you and if you foolish enough to speak they no t you down and for me more. thank you very much. i'm not diagnose russia today again. we had need to -- and i'm sounding like a broken i'm here in this organization for 21 years -- we reform international and casting and b.b.g. nothing is happening. like a hobbling along three three-leg three-legged cat. ifneed to rethink and decide

we want a separate agency which probably think away need in terms of public diplomacy and international broadcasting or a dotted line -- een the state and that hair brain term -- pentagons of launching outfit.ion that collapsed in about a week. , as e need to recognize we think thethink, russians think like us. the russians think that something is a part called information operations hich starts with computers and hacking and disseminating mess the hat will pponent up and interfere with

management and everything else corollary of that. we need to understand how the information warfare theory works. the spokes lerate people planted on our soil who hitler. what is he doing here and why is do not i frankly understand. political hire broadcasting.r our we did it successfully in the and before 980's that they did a terrific job on radio liberty. we have an unfortunate situation political exiles do a trick who could

job being international broadcasters. this t know if administration will do it or the ext but this is a huge undertaking. you cannot do it on the keep but is an important part of our survival of our foreign policy. you.hank let's give our panel a big plus. there were some great presentations and there is having n invitation to we can lecture on what do from our end. right now i would like to invite bring up their questions to the panel. of will have a couple fr like to es and i would identify you by name and affiliation. a number of are

people from broadcasting services and people who have involved in the past so i know there will be a lively discussion. over in the corner that somebody i know will have a opinion.t >> good morning. i served on the broadcasting governors eight years. in some cases i will have to say and s a great honor pleasure to serve our country and those amazing journalists countries.ent our i agree with many of the things ou have said about fixing the broadcasting board of governors. the problem is a bit complicated. first of all, you have to really on.erstand what is going the governors that serve serve at the pleasure of the paid when they are they serve. they have to respond to the united states senate and house of representatives of what is going o

on. on the other hand they meet monthly, but many of us who is more frequently and the bottom line is they rely n the information delivered to them about the various entities that we were responsible for by tier of a senior executive management.eer so, basically you are hearing a iltered source of information much of which is what you are been dead ut has wrong. a strategic plan that was flawed. -- and many of us, i ncluded, have fought and continued to fight for the preservation of shortwave radio. protected. also trying to protect russia, the we could have stopped question is, i think, we have it winning the erm of hearts and minds, i throw that in the toilet. back with the term

called strategy. you can sit here and come up wonderful ideas about what you had do in the future and how you would change it. there are a couple of things to think about first. to the senate foreign relations committee and -- urage them to pwaef beaver up the money. us eight to one. that is not figuring out how spends us. out o we have $755 million to run the language services and the most important thing to fix in the voice of america is the newsroom. is dysfunctional. bbc.an't even keep up with we were the last ones to talk about ukraine. small talking about things. voicet the charter of the

of america what our mission is. if you are going to fix it you these guys and gals be able to do journalism. wonderful journalists who have been serving in the tprafree merica, radio asia and they are being turned impotent. they are bullied. they are not allowed to do their senior level tier that is crippling them. andeak as a former governor i work behind the scenes to try to help them. thing, you are talking bout russia and balkans and easte eastern europe but if you are going to play the game you have else is playing ball. when you think about venezuela the ou talk about resident, who is there rights -- right now? cubans ians, iranians,

but the most important influence russians. are the so we have to look at the map. frantic because i believe it is dysfunctional. but i think with the great powers you have just sitting here and a lot of you with the voices and connections that you the to sell the people in house and senate to help -- and i know the board members are not but you are stuck with them. they are going to hire a c.e.o. help.n you do not need somebody coming corporate or great experience. you need people to come in to board of asting governors and figure out the strategy of saying what you have nd enhance what you have and get money to boost it and get hose careerists who are crippling and intimidating the put t you have there and

them someplace else in siberia. thank you. [applause] i would like to make one response as someone who is very much of having served is career in the interval broadcasting i would want to one. to end ageous decision shortwave and the assumption everything by o a.m. or f.m. broadcasting, you pretty close to the target audience which generally means you have to be in the broadcasting to. once you do that you put yourself at risk. the first is worst than being closed down. the worst is people who say we take risk of criticizing because we might be closed down. the wholesale t ecision to rely on f.m.

broadcasting locally in these put us at enormous risk. told and the assumption was the in the united f.m. s people listen to radio and therefore it should be that way. should, i believe, have f.m. these sting into countries but from neighboring countries, not in them. station on ou put a the ground under the control of there is se regimes risk. think the technology unfortunately that was a huge urgeegic error and i would that in thinking about what needs to be done with u.s. broadcasting one technological underpinnings. message u can get the

to somebody the message is very interesting. peoples at radio liberty said because we exist that gives washington feel-good the and we could just pull electric plug and save money because it is our existence that matters. that was silly. but you have to be able to reach have the ce and technology that lets you do that. internet is only so good. we need the kind of research listens and who doesn't there. >> is very good work done by at the russian chacademy of sciences about how the internet is used. that needs to be factored in. ut the decision to go it f.m., i wanted to go to direct to home satellite tv broadcasting while

expensive and that is one thing thrown up to those argument, that is something that gets you out of controlled or influenced by governments that can close you down when they want to. to look at theds technology rather than who is the firstwhat news as stage to correcting the problem. i wanted to comment on the recommend tkhaeugs we should be recommendation that we should be thinking about strategy. you cannot rely on the governors g board of to be the innovators of american national strategy. american national strategy has to be run by the president of he united states, the senate

security council and its component members of the and defenseof state and the national security advise there serving those policy makers. to be an integrated strategy that takes it into all the different states of craft and the b.b.c. divorced from national strategy. it is an orphan child and it report to anybody in the executive branch and is not held the ntable to anybody in executive branch. that can ly time that possibly happen is if there just a very strong national security advisor who is in y to assume powers competition with the secretary of state and if there just n.s.c. staffer ready to take on the entire

roadcasting and public diplomacy portfolio which there almost never is. so, this is why a structure you had a u.s. public head acy agency where its was a deputy secretary of state, ad our ithin it you h broadcasters -- and i understand argument pws ous hy the surrogate broadcasters should be an independent entity the way they were during the cold war. that.erstand but i also believe that if there can be some ere kind of arm's length arrangement broadcasters gate even under the structure of a ublic diplomacy agency i recommend the director of that agency be a statutory member of national -- a statutory rank in with the same

joint chiefs the of staff. say, public diplomacy will be there at the not just f policy and during the crash-landings. the budgetary part it -- if this agency by the i conceive of having every public diplomatic function of government be put in it including usaid and people argue with me and it is serious and i peace but including the corps which is another valuable instrument of american power and orphan child not related to u.s. strategy. so, i think that when we start hinking about these things

strategically and people are -- by the way, i also think the funding problem solved because these functions never get funded strategic o national need, never. the only time anything does is in the defense department, which i recommend that away create a unitary defense and affairs budget which is soft powergarment of and hard power and all of it according to ed national strategic need. to divideres congress nests so to ent speak in order to agree that? -- that this be done. i agree soft power is our strong

and we should be able to exercise it much more skillfully kind of funding right.this that i think is very important that you remember s the function of broadcasting board of governors as bipartisan working in countries around the world where they have no freedom of speech and they that you can have the right and left come together on the freedom of speech. the other thing to consider on of that board e journalistict is a entity and it s tphis not conce because we protect journali ll of the journalistic charter. .> let's go over here of observations and

sort of government structure. first of all, it is difficult 20-year-oldnvisage a in moscow today for example going out and buying a shortwave radio to listen to the quality radio liberty provides. maybe the content was better but paul is a technology that and and john remember people who grew up on facebook know what it dn't is. so, how you close the technology challenge. i think how you deploy these messages in facebook and twitter a bigger challenge. and who is going to do that when are talking about creating a diplomacy czar, we are

create a public diplomacy czar and some of the with people from madison avenue who have no foreign policy background and great advertisers for or other s rice products didn't cut it. nd the numbers under secretaries for public diplomacy with no and went discernible impact suggests that ot only do we need to rethink the architecture, we need to rethink the resumes of the people. it is not an easy job to be able the strategic outlook .nd understanding of the media finally, there is something to

the creativity of government employees. f we are talking about radio liberty and having government employees doing that on twitter and facebook facebook, i think it will be a get these guys to beijing,0-year-olds in moscow and especially in small russia, ukraine, -- afghanistan. > as we get deeper into the discussion i would like to give the director of the voice of give us his nce to point of view on the many points that have been made. >> thank you very much. t is great to be here discussing what i'm passionate about and clearly everyone else in the room is and that is power.n's soft

it is great to be in a room full of people who think we don't enough and want more because that is what the people believe.of america the question is how to go about t. it may be that president us a favor in a erverse and weird way by his behavior of recent weeks. it may than it will wake up to ington and cause people think more about the need for well-funded sustained soft power by the united states. like otherscause i, in the room, strongly believe in it is d power of it if done right and funded right. there are a lot of -- there's ton a discussion of how best organize it. the existing board has that the current structure is not what it should to the congress

and asked for a change with a c.e.o. type structure. nine ecognize that part-timers even with the pwbes f will, best resumes and intentions don't run a federal as one boss l would. i think it is really a discussion about how best to go forward. adequately fund and lead withinblic diplomacy and that broadcasting. there are lots of different point of views. don't agree that everything members of the panel have said wisdom thata lot of has been expressed in my view as practicer. i don't think that voice of america is hobbling along. with what we have which is not a very large budget cctv and o r.t. and others. i think we do remarkably we will. reach approximately 164 illion people a week on one

platform or another with news and information and information united states and its values and society, which is valued. million people are interested in it. the former governor said -- i she is right -- there's the issue of journalism. with voice of america is journalism. the reason so many performance ant to hear us is because away do that, not propaganda. the radio moscow model they have voice but nobody listened. we have something to talk about about freedom of speech. we export the first amendment. people are interested in what is really going on in the world in consist.t news so, as you talk about how best for ganize it, my friend

many years john my one criticism presidential appointments running things, my wall really e fire has helped voice of america and other broadcasters. allows us to have credibility and credibility is how you build audience, by being truthful. gradeeabulk about scandal away build audience and credibility. kind judgment of the america stands for is enormously powerful and much more so than a operation run by political leaders could be. that it is lk about person to keep that in mind. there.s i should stop just on shortwave, i wish answer.e was the but the statistics do not suggest it.

20-year-olds in moscow are not radios and it e is difficult to see how to get them to. of e go to the new type shortwaves. can we get them to do that? not clear. the idea of direct to home satellite television very with what is happening it possibly needs a closer look. suggest that while on the one hand in the ormer soviet space there are a number of people that have dishes in russia there are not many. so, it is of interest and something we should look at and coming period that may be something that is done. estonia and atvia, a broadcast lding in russia is appealing and that is something the united states support. we could do a program for them be a sist them that could

collaboratio collaboration. i will stop there. on the various criticisms of voice of america, we are we are fine with debate about what we did and we are passionate about what we do glad there are people in town who are passionate because it is very important and never more important than at a be when russia seems to acting up been ukraine. >> two quick comments. i can't agree more with he idea that doing journalism is absolutely essential. the greatest impact that u.s. broadcasting has had in a lot of places i know we reported things that the political weight of this country wasn't sure we reported. i talked to so many who remember hen v.o.a. and radio liberty broadcast the watergate hearings and there were lots of people

in the administration who didn't want that to happen. but i remember the comment of that he said you now, if you live in a country -- this was 1991 -- if you live in a country where at the bring president just for bugging an office that is a country i want to be part of. a tendency to s forget the extent to which those opposed hich are often by the political establishment are very useful. -- other thing i would because i spent my life looking at the periphery of countries -- not russia. tendency to project whatever is true of moscow and whole because a that is where we have the data and easiest to get the data and embassy is, etur cetera, et cetera. media you look at

consumption patterns in a place the largest republican in most ssian federation people there will -- this includes the 20-year-olds -- ely on short waver because distances are so huge that what of the in the periphery russian federation is very ifferent than what is true in moscow. just because we have a government that tends to act as f moscow is russia international broadcasters should be aware that russia is ctually a country and a large part of it are people no have very different consumption media than those in the center. -- because ie that have been in contact with people you sent a tweet to them sea as ld be as much at i am with most of the new technology. entitled to not

understand things. is quite striking. i think we need to take our moscow on not just in enormous in the regions of russia, i wanted to mention one last point. all be aware that the russianments in ederation, predominant ly ethic russian have called on moscow to only liske because they believe they might have a having many rights as are supposed to get now that russia has invaded. invaded crimea here have been a number of improvemen improvements, a number of efforts to up our game if you ill by u.s. international

broadcasting. i know our sister organization radi radio free europe is working in overdrive. enormously in en evidence on ukrainian 5 and other hannel stations using enormous amount v.o.a. material. our ukrainian service is working service and the russian to have as much impact as possible. he ukrainian service obtained funding from the state department and is out to hire a ouple of people that will be working with the russian language broadcasting it eastern perspective the from the united states and from ukrainians. so, there are things that are being done. some of them i don't want to detail because i don't think it is helpful. there is no point in telling our what we are up to. but there is a lot being done. if we had be done

more funding. but we are not sitting still. think we're playing an important role both in ukraine very much so and increasingly we do more inor ways to russia. it is true that russia shut down many of our broadcasts. not true -- the story that recently happened about a radio suburbs of mosc moscow, a.m. that is a relatively minor development. i don't like it. t was a decision by the kremlin. it lost us at most 1% to 1.35% the audience. the big play in russia is digital but we have other things i don't want to go -- that we are doing. e are not without ways of reaching the russian people and if we had more resources we more. do > beaver -- we are going to take two questions here. the lady in the front and back here.

then i will invite you to make a comment. we are running a bit overtight bum we have so much to say. >> i'm from the international d.c. we have so much to say. >> i'm from the international committee for crimea in d.c.t w. >> i'm from the international committee for crimea in d.c. a week ago i had a young lady at y highways, we were just carnally talking, she is -- we talking and ually she is from crimea who grew up there. young woman and her when sheoved to crimea was a child so you know where from.s coming she casually mentioned, she said morals but 't have they have pride. i wonder whether you would like

comment on this. as subverse asst any other nation. there are people among the the highest is have morality. russia has given us many given -- itople and has recently led a number of declare their own government is engaged in a ukraine.enterprise in o i think the first half of that sentence is not universally true. he second half is terribly important that you worry about pride when you are insecure who you are. one of the things that flows proposition i started my talk about the relationship 010 the state and nation is that -- between the state and nation is in states where the preexists the state and state tend to

counterbiological. they. like they are at risk national inch goes up and if they are secure it goes down. is evidence from how many american flag there were in neighborhoods in 2001 as possess posed to september 12. ith the russian federation state power and the sense of national identity track together. that means is that when the state is very weak national tends to be-we weak. is why paoutd orchestrated the killing of 300 russians in and blamed it on the chechens to restart the war nation.the chechen the problem is that when you get o a certain point this nationalism focuses on pride alone and pushes forward that are dangerous and

hat feeds on each other and that is true. >> let's have the last question all have a chance to comment. >> i'm a former white house correspondent as recently as six seven weeks ago. to speak in public in which is i was not able to air fori was a correspondent. >> voice of america? >> yes. v.o.a. has been very clearly hobbling along. others made a specific effort the last few years to bring to the attention of the things that the public relations apparatus of apnd b.b.g. didn't want to months and in recent responded to with defensiveness and in error. parts of the b.b.g.

perhaps the surrogate live tv on the internet websites, able ow, you might not be to say that other parts of the b.b.g. structure. much detail.to if you want to talk about the hobbling along including the digital you can contact me by phone or e-mail. i wanted to make a point it what wasted it said and you discussed to john ariel how would you see the relationship changing who workhe journalists for voice of america and other organization who is operate chartersir own form of as the v.o.a. does under its own changing as journalistic reporters. if v.o.a. was declared to have ov

on the n.f.c. there would be exclamation points white house the corresponde correspondents organization and there should be questions there should be a whout correspondent representing the v.o.a. goal is to take down the billboards on various bureaus replace them that is another thing. but i think that is a very important question and one i be interested in hearing from because there are many v.o.a. who got there at the beginning and many who came in who do not see working under any foreign policy structure or khraoeug colleagues as to the n.s.c., white others. that is what i would want to say. just observe here, i that the advocated

voice of america should do construedhat could be as propaganda. it has never done that. never been charged with that. nobody wants that. a while we ce in know that a secretary of state may calm the se director of the v.o.a. and tell a m to try to censor broadcast, which has happened in the past. the ost of its history voice of america worked as part of the united states information gency which was a separate gency that reported ultimately to the white house under guidance from the state they didn't cause ake policy but was subject to state department policy. i don't think the united states government e a funded cnn. journalism there,

that's right. a state is simply not journ journalistic enterprise. of america is part of the foreign policy of the united speaking does so by the truth. ut there are -- and one can be completely objective about how one reports these things. as shall knows there are of erent editorial ways presenting objective news, there there are es, photographs, there are -- and there are editorials. and the v.o.a. has an editorial office that defends the policies and e united states somebody needs to do that in the worlds. somebody needs to defend those and cn tphrfrpblgts -- do it.sn't there is no argument here. i think there is room for a b.b.g.san board like the

but not exercising executive power. the model that works well was exercised by the international broadcasting before it became a governing board. oversight board. t was bipartisan and it made itself -- its business was to experts who would -- who he n't have equities in t politics or factional politics a given country and they would find some proffer at the -- professor who knew the language and would listen to the broadcasting two find out whether it was biased in favor of one whether it nother,

was pushing a different agenda. surrogate radios, needs not be, did quote nquote, consistent with u.s. foreign policy. they need to be not inconsistent with u.s. foreign policy and a difference there, it is a strategic difference and an arm's length arrangement with that kind of outfit but they are all part of foreign policy of the united states and needs to be understood that way. about make one thing technology. single venue very of trying to reach foreign udiences has to be attempted, whether a.m., f.m. shortwave, cell phones sthraoeutds. remember when we were in the that sovietscovered channels s had u.h.f.

built into them and were not being used. a satellite that broadcast over u.h.f. you could it up could pick directly on their tv's with the without a dish. then in short waver there is a d.r.m.logical nd you can you not only broadcast voice over it, you can video.ast text and ho is going to get them a d.r.m. receiver? well, the people who find that a good signal being send. and we could flood the world d.r.m. receivers and people, some people will get them and they can listen to stuff or watch it anonymously.

with regard to audience tatistics, i want to say david ensor i think what the voice of beenca does and you do has nothing short of heroic in the neglectc environment of of soft power by several administrations. this is a bipartisan problem. -- i would seen if i may say so to it short sell yourself when comes to audience statistics. monk in a a single uddhist monastery in tibet listening to the voice of america secretly in the basement y -- at monday stair monastery and he tells the to the piece of news other monks and all the pilgrims come in there and go back to

villages is that an audience of one or an audience of thousands? i'm not quite sure. but when there is good relevant nformation that affects the lives of people, yes, sometimes distorted what one says to another and to another, et cetera. effecthink the strategic is there and i think that the effect than bigger your modest statistics even reveal. those are just a few thoughts. thought to build on that. my closest y wife, friend in the world was the one at theivered the address formal creation of the b.b.g. merrye thing that leonard was proud of is he had in his a set of books of notebooks in which he had 1950 ed every day from

his ability to listen or not listen to western broadcasters like voice of and radio vatican, like radio free y or europe. because he saw that as his life world. the one of the things that -- i talking about splash is very important, the splash effect is bigger than many people imagine. but there is also something related to it and that is the long-term thing. is not as many people seem to short term question of but ing this or that developing the confidence you can only do by broadcasting over nd over again for many years and be known for accuracy. hard to develop a represent talks and easy to lose

it. it is the fire wall is critical. ournalism is critical and that which is commentary needs to be carefully. good journalism i thought we should act with confidence about often ble sense and we act as if we are not confident. the first confidence is the definitely on our side, not on the other side so interesting in putting out accuracy even go it moment look bad that because in the long term the truth is more important and works to our benefit. second is that i definitely the solution to bad information is in almost every information. it is bringing -- it is having good information. reason that has been broadcasting et did so badly is there were alternative sources and people see how bad it was.

it is critically important that hose sources be there all the time and now with a russian government that shall we say is loosely connected to the truth most of the time and to the r ual taeurtsdz in -- facilitators. the truth works for us. last thought. i worked half of my life in nternational broadcasting for the united states government and i'm very proud of it. the proudest moments were with secretary baker at the end of 1991 nd beginning with the non-russian peoples of in occupied ion baltic states. during that time there was no leaders take these around from the leaders when at the came to washington. left to me to take them around in my yellow volvo. would. and i had a carefully plotted strategy because there were

you definitely wanted them to see. 11 chiefs of state of 15 soon to be countries that i took around it is striking that asked top their photograph taken in the first where most people would imagine in front of the state department or washington monument. wanted to be taken, have their picture taken u.s. supreme e court because somehow they had i'm sure is u.s. international broadcasting that n the building there is the indescription equal justice under law. thought is what they they were about. that was incredible. it was a moving thing other time it happened. my favorite he can is when the communist of the

his hair in b iing the weekend so they would have a ood picture in front of the supreme court and i say thank you to v.o.a. for doing that. ariel, any final thoughts? >> i think what we earned today historic was plenty of and current political material, international t broadcasting and public is.omacy gosh, i have been in this town years and sometimes it was that there were no lessons tremendous our victory in the cold war through soft power. audienceradio research we were saying international broadcast one half of one

results carrier and the were tremendous. we need to rethink it. grandfather'syour central broadcasting authority. t is a much more fluid and dispersed world. and, as somebody who grew up v.o.a., to bbc and a kid in russia i can tell you that the products are different, the competition much more fierce. is much more entertaining and competitive and -- interrate r interrelated. of fer to the game throefrpbs and sex in the city re permeating the russian discourse on facebook and outside of facebook.