you deliver the subsidies through a public company with private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. >> read more of our conversation with gretchen morgenstern and other featured interviews from our booknotes and q&a programs. >> the a discussion on russian politics. the featured speaker is the only russian lawmaker to vote against the annexation of crimea. he talked about what led to his decision and how the situation in ukraine is being framed by vladimir putin. this is little more than one hour.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the heritage foundation. onwelcome those who join us all of these locations on our heritage.org website. for those in-house, make sure your cell phones are turned off. we will welcome questions at any time, it e-mailing us speaker @heritage.org. hosting our discussion is the senior fellow at russian studies. he has a firsthand knowledge of the former soviet union and middle east and his work focuses on such issues as economic development and political reform in the former soviet republics, u.s. commrg security, global war on terrorism, and continuing conflict in the middle east. he served as a consultant in both the skeckive branch and private sector on policy toward russia, central and eastern europe, central asia.

he co-authored russian imperialism in crisis as well as eurasia in balance. focusing on the easternure peaian region. please join me in welcoming dr. cohen. [applause] >> thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. it is my particular pleasure to welcome ilia to the heritage foundation. it is a pleasure because i always admire people who have courage to speak truth to power. it is not easy in any society. it is particularly not easy in today's russia. ilia could have a wonderful wife in russia. he was the youngest president of the lucas oil company back in the 1990's at the age of 24. he worked for multinational oil services companies.

he is extremely gifted as a youngster, as a 14-year-old, he he was teaching computers in the soviet nuclear physics institute to the old guys who didn't know at the time about p.c.'s. so either a career of a conformist politician or a businessman would have saved ilia a lot of trouble. instead he decided to take principal stances, he he was the only one in the duma who voted against the so-called gay propaganda law, and most importantly, he he voted against the

annexation of the crimea. and that took a lot of courage. he worked in this country in high tech. he has background in investment and as i said already in oil and gas. he he was a member of the duma for the just russia party, and he is really a political star in any other democracy he would have been already vice minister, minister and a respected member of legislation. instead, as he is going to tell us, his going is rough and

becoming rougher. welcome and let's have meaningful conversation about what's going on. [applause] >> so the first question i would like to ask you, what made you vote the only vote against annexation of the crimea? i remembered the votes in the german plarlment in the beginning of world war 1 -- plarlment in the beginning of world war i. who paid with their lives. for the vote against a senseless world war. what makes you stand up and say no when everybody else is voting yes? >> thank you very much for your kind introduction. i'm blushing. i think that you were too kind speaking like that. the inspiration was coming from comrade plutnik although the person who convinced me to do what i have done was vladimir putin.

it was two days before the actual vote was taking place in duma. it was a presidential address to the national assembly, to the lower chamber, to the state duma, and there was a big crowd of people, maybe 1,000 people all together because there were member of parliament plus governors and other invited guests, and everybody was just shouting and waving hands and praising putin. hailing chief. and saying let's take over crimea. that was so -- reminded me so much of the soviet past and the negative past of the soviet. so firstly i decided to seek friends, not stand up and not join the cheering crowd. secondly i decided i have to vote against. i didn't know whether i should

just small take part in the vote or should i vote against. that time i was convinced i should vote against. this is emotional part. the rational part is that being of course patriot of russia, i he was thinking that this move to take over crimea is extremely unbeneficial for my country. what we ending up with? firstly, our brother nation of ukraine is no longer friend. and whatever dreams we had about the union, about the projects went down. we were always thinking about the issues of national security and were saying that nato should never come to ukraine and ukraine should remain neutral.

and that was pretty much supported by ukrainian people. in 2013, national polls in ukraine indicated that from 15% to 17% were in favor of joining nato. others were against. now after our move, majority of ukranians want to be part of nato. and that's also not beneficial for russia. thirdly, is the question of international investments and technological climate in my country.

the capital run from russia this year is estimated between 150 and 200 billion u.s.d. that means that every single citizen of russian federation pays more than $1,000 for annexation of crimea. that is twice as much as we are investing in health care. this is seven times -- 7 1/2 times more than we invest in r&d, and --

>> per capita basis. >> in absolute figures. the budget per annum in health care russia is 71 billion u.s. and the capital 150-plus. >> let me ask you this, the ideological and spiritual climate in russia that a lot of folks in the u.s. have a hard time following because of the language, because we are preoccupied with our domestic issues, obamacare, we are preoccupied with china.

but to focus on what's happening in russia socially and ideologically. you either have to live there or spend a lot of time doing that like myself being addicted to the russian facebook. what i see is a quick change, it's a fast change from sort of laisez faire soft model that we had in the past decade. from 2000 to 2004, and then maybe under medvedev, it was authoritarian but it was not particularly harsh as far as thorn models are concerned. ukraine is a katjalies, the change started to happen even before ukraine with the ban on adoption of russian kids. with the ban on support of russian nonprofits by western financers. the anti-gay propaganda law. all kinds of things that the state is increasing its interference in people's lives. how does ukraine affect that, and where does it -- where is it moving, where is it going? >> i think that those changes, you know, they are pretty much on the surface. the fundamentals, and the fundamentals are such that

russia as united states is a nation which believes in its mission. and even our missions are pretty similar. we believe in freedom. we believe in distribution of our core values. and it was communist time when russians thought that those communist ideas are light of freedom and invigoration for our neighbors nation and the rest of the world. and we defeated fascism. >> in coalition with the united states. >> we did it on our own. because really official number's 20 million perished during world war ii, and that is something that every single family in russia has suffered.

every single family has. >> getting to ukraine today -- >> i'm getting there. so there was a mission which suddenly disappeared in 1990's and 2000. but it didn't go anywhere because at our core it was still there. and the biggest national idea for russia during all those years was the victory day. >> may 9, not may 8. >> yeah because of the time difference. the european victory in world war ii. >> stalin made sure it won't be the same day the europeans are celebrating. >> so that is our main national holiday.

that would unite the full nation, the fight against the fascism. and how it was presented to the nation by president putin is that in ukraine those are western sponsored fascists who came to power, and he dedisplayed with flags of foreign ukrainian liberation army who were allied with us during world war ii, and so he used that to prove that these are fascists who are fighting against both russia and ukrainian nation. so it's misinterpretation that we are looking just to protect russia or russian-speaking minority. no for the overwhelming majority of russians we are continuing world war ii.

and we are liberating, really liberating, ukraine from the fascist threat. and more we are thinking about liberating the whole of europe because what is europe these days? these gay people with arabs who were disswaying european civilization and christianity, and putin is always referring to those values of christianity and our belief an our tradition. so extremely conservative in this sense. that's why he's allied in europe, movements like in the french. >> the head of the national front. >> he yeah. and other ultraright conservatives in many countries. after recent elections to european parliament, they were

in all russian media were presented as a huge success of those rights. >> is there a paradox, you have some family members who are specialists on different political movements in the outside world. so the soviet union until about 1987 or even 1989 was a great supporter of communist and leftist movements all over the world. i wrote my masters thesis about that. now only 25-plus years later russia is viewed or putin is viewed as not just an ally but as a guiding light to the neofascist hungarian party jobik, or to madeline lapenn, or german national democrat party which is nazi. somehow the ukrainian ultranationalists are put aside, and by the way the percentage of vote of the recent presidential

election in ukraine in favor of ultranationalists is only 10%. whereas in france and hungary its 20% or higher for these guys. what is the swing of the pendulum from left to right, what's going on here? >> you see i think that those extremes, they are getting pretty close to each other. if you look u.s. example and russia to date, it's been admired by both tea party and occupy wall street force. >> they occupy wall street in russia today. >> you know, you may feel you're not that familiar with tea party.

>> i'm not that familiar. >> i will show you example. >> with exception a particular member of congress, can i not think of anybody who admires vladimir putin. >> i think it's actually pretty natural. because putin during last 20 years in general, our officials, they are trying to capitalize on the industry of the soviet union, but trying to flip it from the ideas of world revolution and the leftist idea of internationalism to empire idea. it's been seen as the most successful of either of russia in all ages. >> how many people stalin killed officially? >> there are a lot of stipulations on that, what i'm saying about national polls, people will still support stalin and identify themselves -- stalinists is between 5% and 0% in all polls.

>> think positive of stalin. despite the fact that the research indicate that probably up to 20 million were killed. >> i think 20 million -- doesn't matter. it would be 100,000. >> you're taking the civil war, the agricultureure in the early 1930's and repression. millions and millions of people. >> whatever. let's not go in this discussion. but my point is that stalin during soviet union times was always seen and driven on the leftists agenda. right now he's been seen as a great emperor, the great conquerer. beholder of the empire. putin is trying to build his background from stalin and trying to capitalize on that. >> do you remember when putin said, we were weak and the weak are beaten? that was a direct quote.

i want to move on to something that is close to your heart, i know. innovation and foreign investment. you were a lead on the skolko project, it was brought to partial end, and i don't see anything that is replacing it as sort of a magnet for pushing forward russian high tech, gotting young entrepreneurs to develop their ideas. from what i read a lot of people emigrate, people who want to do business in their 20's or early 30's, what is going on with that? what are the impediments today to investment and entrepreneurship in russia? >> you know there are two trends in that community. one trend which is more local and probably larger in quantity. the trend to emigrate, there are several visible examples like

rushian mark zuckerberg, founder of russian version of facebook, and as you might know that's with a i like to walz with, facebook is now four russian social network. it's not even number two or number three. our engineers are really great. and the greatest of them was palo. he said he to longer wants to stay if russia because of the attacks conducted on security people and particularly from someone trying to take over as a company. then our biggest i.t. company is now under attack. our first and biggest system integration company, eds-like, company announce the he's moving

outside russia. so there is a significant flea -- flee. >> flight. >> flight of those. from the other side several of our developers who are focused on domestic market, they think that it would be bigger military procurement. that would be higher demand for necessaryically developed technologies. and so that they will be getting more money. my personal opinion is that the increase in domestic spending for new technologist will be not

so significant as people expect. russia during recent 20 years of new liberal reforms, lost its ability to produce a lot of high technology and products and relies heavily on importing them from the outside. and restore production of those things would be extremely difficult and lengthy. >> i saw million augosian, vice premiere for military industrial, he was pushing to shut down the g.p.s. stations on the russian territory. and i don't remember if he threatened or actually made the move to curb the use of russian booster rockets to the space station. i believe there was a threat. maybe a decision. i'm not sure.

but are there any accomplishments like with maybe glasnost or space launches? what are the accomplishments so far of this very statused approach to innovation and high tech? >> you see i was always very vocal proponent of creating our own technologicalist which would at least go pair to pair with international peers and which would regularly replace them. the same thing -- >> as an impoth substitution or global competition? >> as a global competition. of course domestically to use our internal market to boost the demand. and to make money for our high-tech companies. and glasnost is a great example of such a technology. >> do you believe that without

competition in russia from foreign competitors -- >> exactly my point. if you're shutting down the competition, then you have no drive to increase your service. and increase quality. quality of glasnost is not yet there. it's being gradually improving, but it's not yet there. it had all the chances to become a global competitor with g.p.s. we need to add five years of stable work to issue that. same thing with our domestic russia when like i was one of the programs that i was

supervising was a transition to services, government services. >> e-government? >> yeah. and we want to develop our own visa-type card to pay for those services, and there was sufficient market for that. >> this is your work with minister of communications? >> yes, that's right. but at that timeure ruling party voted against -- our ruling party voted against because they were allied with several banks which was against them. it was more profitable to work with western card. now because of the national security concerns they are trying to shut down visa an master card, but there is no replacement. so by shutting down visa and

master card, it disrupt your payment services for your clients. >> the russians are still sometimes using the aba can cuss -- baba cuss. >> you are outdated. the penetration of cards right now is 83%. >> let's get back to issues that you as a legislator you're concerned. in the

this is going to create it of the executive ranch and on about runs of power. do you see they are demonstrating that? what would be the solutions? i really agree with what he just said. indeed, it was undemocratic. undemocraticd in circumstances. on the public referendum, in 1993, even the official numbers

were part of that. this is the fundamental problem for russian political and social economic systems. the problem is that it was from the france -- french constitution. given more power than to the french. then this was above all three branches. the checks and balances are ruined.

that was balanced by personality. even with those ideas, they were very far from that. he was the leader of the communist party. i very much believe in the idea that at that time, he would be allowed to coin the jury. the for be very help the political system. that would create an example of democratic transition.

>> i do not think he is exactly a democrat. >> it is just a pretty weak. he also has the inland groups which were begging him at the time. i think it would be about the obligation. he would not be able to change the strip matted clay. drastic. not so ,> had to say in russian history cannot suffer conditionality's. looking at the system today, our things are working? what kind of changes would better serve the russian society? biggest ones about ,he role of the constitution

right now the majority of the thetions lean toward constitutional reform. . example thaterfect the country used this without the presidents. >> it was the presidents. page was the prime minister. he was the leader of elementary majority. think it is a proven example that it will be safe. [now]

>> it is very possible. according to the russian tradition, there are many archetype in our fairytale. who judged it.on to have such an ultimate judge who is most opposed to give any executive decision. it was supposed to be the ultimate ruler between the political groups. that is very stabilizing. we have that too. we, the supreme court. think the judicial

system should be the main system. it should be the be-all, final system in russia. another -- neither executive or legislation. >> ok. to finish it, not everybody shares this. it was for our colleagues. >> can you give us an example? it was like part of the system. they say the constitution is good. let's just restore the competition. part of the circle that push through.

are the opposition leader. it would be better. he said the organizing narrative was against that in world war ii. in coalition with the west. children who will learn. >> do not tell me that. kids who learn russian history of the unified history that is are they being

prepared, there will be one narrative of history. fought the not these and the japanese the peerless in. -- imperialism. you have people part of the establishment. they are planted in new york as a representative of the institute for democracy. the russian government funded the operation. until 1939.ood nierenberged the laws. you have the grandson. he is saying the area in crime,

the narrative is becoming more and more racists, not to like -- nazi-like, justifying hitler which is inconceivable in the midst of fighting german. what is going on with that? >> the people whom you mentioned can testify this. >> he was telling them to justify? >> i think they know their instincts. they just want to please the chief. they are actually a like. are a like too much. like the old soviet propoganda. has propositions all

the time. anis trying to put him as emperor. he was seen as a dissident. he would not be doing that if he on the expect a pat back or spot on national television. w. he was doing this no his position is firm. he is dedicated to his idea. he was fighting in the russian white house and they were shot with the tanks. it is now productions -- putin's position. petition athave any

all. >> what worries me is that even the third reich is something that was inconceivable in russia and so maybe three or five years ago, only people like alexander dugan and other whoalent ideologist articulating the idea of eurasian empire were in the 1980's members of secret probe azi see -- pro-not societies. are you concerned the term is spanish rating from the very margins of the russian political march were people raising their arms?

>> lets me explain here. believe and i'm concerned about the fascist threats in russia. a trend for ad as time. even without all the public speeches. constituents your back in the rural ages, you these which have been oppressed close those that have been associated. they are building democracy in russia. >> is that their propaganda? or are you saying mistakes were made? likes mistakes were made.

it is actually programmed that there was no business in the country and that those actually exists. the opposition is highly more competitive. high-technology tour and very well develop natural resources. this and itt from with this that .as admitted many times intention wasal to break the back of the connie nest establishment and new been to a whole new delete -- new

delete? elite? >> that is what we are saying fundamentally. very good. if you look at those guerrilla fighters which are active in eastern parts of ukraine which have been seen as the military you just come at the pages on the social networks, you will see the groups there. russia without putin. groups. are opposition wputin. against >> you also have those on the russian national unity. >> [inaudible]

now he is not. that is not because they have changed their position. it is because putin's changed his. that is the problem. they want the government. they want this. getting ups already there. one last question before we open for discussion. i am sure there are a lot of questions here and there are also cameras and people can send questions through the internet. there is a political change, there's is always a political change, what is there? a lot of people in this town that it will just be a beautiful liberal democracy in

will bend all the evil the others will be in charge. i will tell you the name of the person i am quoting after this. they say next year we will have a change. in your estimate, when there is violent? is it peaceful? is it something else? what are the powers that are capable of not just overthrowing buildgime but really theia that you wish,

russia that is open to the world, that fosters innovation, and that entrepreneurs and others have freedom? the secondtart from part of the question. my russia is [inaudible] my russia is the russia of personal initiative. my rushes the rush of a weak russia is the russia of a weak government but self-governing institutions. is a russia of for the global, christian civilization. unionelieve in the global .

you see in russia there is a third room. wasas -- initially, it rome. his and seenme was and the third is moscow -- was and the third is moscow. when you are saying about how theyhanges might occur, liberal idea is extremely unfortunate. and with the corruption i do not expect in any circumstances

would occur, that the liberals would be able to come to power. without the participation in the changes, because this was happening in the russian capital of moscow is relatively pro-liberal. without their participation, the changes would not be possible. you cannot do it without the participation. if they are in charge of the rest of the regions would move forward. violence in more areas than in ukraine. most likely we will see streaks. way more violent

and disruptive been ukraine. coalition might work. as the coalition between nations of liberals. , despiteur liberals the rhetorics, they are leaning more toward the ones with nationalists.[ they believe that nations don't have an agenda and they do believe it would be somenod power andthe political someone new as the top of the government. >> economically liberal in

socialist not style left-wing democratic party. that is not that kind of liberalism. >> in the u.s., it is more like neoconservative. my participation in what i'm trying to achieve, the coalition between neoliberals nationlists happens in the ukraine. isolates nationalists. >> yes that is what i am trying to do as much as i can. jail.s where they put to

>> was is a personal threat to year? your status. >> they are trying to revoke my status. they were introduced to the state. i was flying in the airplane.

he is taking tremendous political risks. visible stances on a number of issues. it a littlel extend bit. please introduce yourself and commit to a question that is short. >> microphone. here, interning here. know, the west is some sanctions on russia. recently russia signed a very big oil deal, gas deal with china. many economists are saying this is the challenge.

it has a large national or base. they have the natural gas stockpiles. >> in the 90's we have such a sanction about the west. if you pretend you are helping us, we will pretend we're doing reforms. you pretend you're showing shinning us and we will pretend that we are free. it is a very narrow circle of people.

they're taking this about certain personalities. meaningful.at least there to the middle of management. putin wanted to retire everybody. to bee asking for them members of russian parliament. assumptions are not productive. what is happening is that people

are stealing from the russian federal budget. .nd then moving these s butthe european also in the u.s.. this would be very helpful. maybe not exceptionally against russia. corruption is here for all of them. it is all with the emerging markets. it is in africa, asia, russia. >> i agree. markets, itging does not perceive them as part

of this as in russia. you are trying to help us creates the democracy in the country. it would be appreciated. that is not doing harm to the russian people. it is positioning west and the life. they would search for those. field, it is gas very much advertise. i think the price that was negotiated is a good price. they mention the price china buys. buying it from eastern parts of the country which are

infrastructurally disconnected from the western. it is through europe interactive for china. they have been developed. it would be a political issue for you to become independent from this. times thiset union is a reliable supplier. this is a political tool. we're doing that every single year.

they will lose the market. >> the want to read more about that, i have a blog here. you are welcome to google china /russia gas deal and look it up here at i am more pessimistic about it. today be a good price taking into account dollar inflation. >> the chinese pay for the infrastructure. >> there also giving this. it is very much there. >> it is complicated. the terrain is so difficult. i am not sure it would be a good price.

>> this is a strong personality and the place of the president being prudent. i believe you have life-support from the russian people. what needs to happen for the theian people to see that constitution needs to be changed to be changed as the president does not have that much power or someone weaker put in his place? he has a local supporter base. he enjoys the highest approval ratings during his whole 15 years of power. this is very much described by marx.ark -- carl

it is everything that is going on in russia. the issue with the park is half a year before the collapse he also enjoyed a percentage of populist support. ben this turns out to extremely unsuccessful for france and then he was forced to .eave the country >> you are talking about the war was destroyed,t basically. >> yes. exactly the same situation. that is why i do believe this issue of ukraine may turn out to

be the russian campaign for president clinton. >> the next question. >> you mentioned the russian militants that are fighting in russian ukraine. some are suggesting that if or ukrainere ousted from that the guerrilla war they're starting to instigate will spread into russia. what is your love? i wouldn't use the word "red" in russia." in russia. when i am writing my articles, i say that we are criticizing ukraine for nationalism.

the number of nationalists in moscow is more than in here. 10 times. 100 times. it is not even two or three times. receive several thousands of well armed fighters. they are coming back from different parts of and whatever the outcome, whether russia would have to enter that part of ukraine, i mean use military force there, they would be encouraged and be seen as victors and would come to moscow and state what they think they need to do that.

or russia would not intervene and then they would see putin as a traitor. a lot of my friends from the liberal opposition, they don't really believe it is a big threat. because for them, the biggest enemy is mr. putin. i am very much afraid they would see this as a most capable force that could remove mr. putin from office. we have a great book in russia written in the 1960's, a science fiction book. they wrote that after a time of mediocrity always comes a time of fascism. >> it's hard to be a god.

ok, one and then we will probably have to wrap it up. >> forgive me if you have already answered this question -- >> would you introduce yourself? >> oh, i'm sorry. my name is justin and i'm an intern here in d.c. this summer. i would like to ask, other than protecting russian citizens in ukraine and abolishing fascist leaders -- or idealism, sorry -- what other interest does russia have in ukraine in restoring legitimate government in ukraine? >> thank you for the question. as i said, we are protecting russians there. specifically for crimea, because crimea is primarily russian.

but the donetsk and eastern regions, they are not primarily russian. the russian speaking community is a minority there. what we are doing there, we are fighting against fascist. but the real interest is exactly what i started to answer with the bonaparte comparison to putin's regime. putin relied heavily on mr. yanukovych, the former leader of ukraine.

and when mr. yanukovych was forced to run from the country, of course, that was a very scary example for the russian opposition in general, for the russian society. because that meant that putin was mistaken. secondly, that he could be replaced. thirdly, that even with the military force and all the snipers and whatever was happening in kiev, doesn't stop the rebellious people by removing corrupt politicians from their offices. that had to be overshadowed by some bright and bold moves from the russian government. that is why i think the invasion into crimea was a very short-lived decision. it was taken immediately after what happened with yanukovych happened. it was not well planned. it was on the spot.

and for the eastern parts of ukraine, i think putin is interested in instability in ukraine because that would make the ukrainian government either resign and prove that he was right and that no revolutions can be successful, or would force them to negotiate a new -- a certian view with the russian government, which would help putin to claim victory in that particular case. >> as we saw in the case of georgia in 2008, when president putin met president george w. bush in bucharest in april of 2008, he said two things -- we will never agree that georgia or ukraine members of nato. and if you try to include georgia in nato, we will take crimea. -- and if you try to include the ukraine in nato, we will take crimea.

all this has been treated as a black swan. there is no black swan in intelligence. >> [indiscernible] >> he is on the record to the president of the united states. by instability in ukraine, the chances of ukraine being accepted as a member are about zero right now. and that is one of the objects. -- outcomes. i would like to thank everybody. including our viewers on c-span and the heritage viewers on the internet. you are an excellent audience. and of course, we thank our speaker and we wish him all the best personally, personal safety, and political success to you. thank you very much. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> president obama is back at the white house today after a four-day trip through europe that included stops in poland, brussels, and france. the trip concluded yesterday. through the course of his trip, the president also attended the annual g7 summit and held one-on-one meetings with david cameron and francois hollande. you can find portions of the president posture online at www.c-span.org. talked aboutories overseas and remain a topic in the u.s. was last weekend's u.s.-taliban prisoner exchange that resulted in the release of an army sergeant in afghanistan.

senator dianne feinstein has questioned the idea that the sergeant was a threat. politico writes about an interview the senator made with bloomberg television, in which he said there was no information to suggest there was a credible threat. john barrasso of wyoming talked about the topic on this weekend "newsmakers." here's a portion of what he had to say. >> i want to know about the bothified briefing, earlier, and the administration that said health is a concern but now there are reports indicating there's a different reason, and there was a death threat involved, and that's why they could not inform congress within the 30 days.

is that a credible excuse? briefing thatate there was stonewalling of the senate -- i have heard this from both sides of the aisle. the white house continues to seem to change its story. it is interesting today that "time" magazine, the headline came out, more kidnappings to come after the deals. concern, they have released five hardened terrorists, and lots of concern expressed about that. it may put more americans at risk. go back to afghanistan, they go back into the fight as rock stars. so many of us on both sides of the aisle think this was a terrible idea.