2019 budget request. >> former u.s. ambassador to the moderated a panel on russia's future under vladimir putin. the event comes a day after he declared victory in a country's presidential election. we had an election yesterday in russia what had a result that was not unexpected. there are nuances there that are worth exploring. we have a wonderful panel here

to provide the exploration for you. you have a bios so i will not read through them, but let me just introduce them. with that, i would like to give your first word. of the interested in your view in your take on the most significant things with yesterday's election. pleasure and it is fun to be here and to be a part of this panel. everybody understood that there was a presidential election.

and all presidential candidates understood what kind of a game they were taking part. secondly, what's putin fighting? he was fighting with himself, with his previous popularity. having an approval rating around 80%, he could not make 50% of the vote. so you was looking apparently and there was an election in 2004 and 2012 and he could get impression that he has satisfactory victory. against, 64% in 2012. thirdly, is putin getting satisfactory legitimacy? i would say that in the kremlin people we do have people and they do understand that this situation is quite situational

and legitimacy is probably short lived. that's why we had absolutely desperate campaign in the end of march when president putin rejected the previous legitimacy and the previous role of gatherer of russian lands and shifted suddenly in march to the numeral and new function. defender of the russians paid of motherland and terminator ready to kick over the global transport. it was the decision of the last several weeks. and next question, will russia, the elites accept this kind of legitimacy, how long is sustainable and durable this kind of legitimacy could be. i could give you several results at the end of 2017, not now but 17. and here we have the view of russians of what russia should

be. first of all, russia should be great power but not a militaryist great power. 59% people were saying that the major goal of the russians, the foreign policy is to guarantee russia's economic well-being. only 90% considers that russia has to become the state that would stop the u.s. aggression and expansion. and only 14% consider that russia should stop expansion in the former -- and 59%, 56% of russians say we do not agree that cremea should be paid out of the russian budget. it's quite possible that it could be an idea to be a defender of the moreland and militarism and also

playing bully around the world would be supported by the russian society. i will finish with probably the conclusion. it's quite possible that the new presidential term will be a kind of time will be pretty formidable and pretty sharp conflict between the putin's revival, between the agenda on the regime, on the one hand and the system of personalless power on their left. level of mechanism of survival. to be inside of the west. this so far putin started to undermine the key principles of the current russian state and system survival.

i would then say the president putin will be presided over his last chapter. entity the this political see be changed pretty soon. the older position they will vanish. the older timid -- generational go to the cemetery. and now the kremlin is trying to fill the vacuum with the new people and a lot depends to what extent of russian civil society. they knew russia would try to create new resistance and new alternative to the putin regime and to putin's state. thank you. >> that's really interesting. i would like to ask you one quick follow-up question. then i'll turn to vladimir. you say that he seems to be putting on a course to challenge the current russian system. could you just be a little bit more detailed on that?

if the reck nism of survival of the personal system after the collapse of the soviet union to use the western finances, to use the western technology, to build together with the west, very powerful, rather cynical. i call it manafort lobbying machine in the west. putin by his arrogance, bullishness undermines this prerequisite of the system survival. >> vladimir, you've been heavily engaged in opposition politics. nevali was not permitted to run. you had this call for boycott. how do you look at the results of this election? light of that? thank you for the invitation back here at the atlantic council. first of all on the question of terminology. there are many ways

to describe what happened in russia yesterday. i would say that election is not one of them or at least if we're insisting on using that word let us put it in quotation marks. it's been said that the sure sign of a real election is when you are certain of the procedures but not certain about the outcome. for years now elections in our country follow the exact opposite model. procedures and roles have been shifted. the end result is never in doubt. and the date of yesterday's so-called actions is a good illustration of that. it was supposed to be on the 11th of march. especially when the voting day coin sides with the annexation of crimea. so the rules are constantly shifted but the end result is never in doubt. and even the final official figures announced yesterday to what we have been

reading about in newspapers for weeks. but not only the name but actually the actual figures were known well in advanced. and yesterday, several opposition groups, several society organization including our own movement and the anti-corruption foundation have been conducting extensive monitoring of the so-called election that they documented the usual plethora of vote-getting methods that putin's regime is known for, ballot stuffing, bloated voter rolls. people voting because of threats of being sacked or expeled from universities or many, many other things. and i could speak about that in detail if you want. i think all of these voting day violations frankly are largely irrelevant because this election was rigged long before the first vote was even cast. it's not difficult to win an election when your opponents are not actually on the ballot. and the defining feature of this so-called election yesterday is

that there were two major opposition figuring who were planning to run in 2018. one was boris stenzil. and the other was alexander viney and neither of them were on the ballot yesterday. boris because he was killed two years ago on the bridge in front of the kremlin. and the other because he was barred from running with a trumped up court decision that was already invalidated. but this has never stopped the kremlin regime. this has never stopped the kremlin regime. when the head of the regime selects his own opponents, i again, would say that we probably should avoid just a few hours ago in moscow, the head of the o.s.c., we had bjorn present the official findings of the o.s.c. mission. this is the watchdog that is responsible for election observation and has been the

gold standard for election observation in europe for decades. and their conclusions are very similar to what i just described to be my own view. he said there was no real competition. there was no real choice. and he actually went as far to say and for an international diplomat, he said the way this election was con ducked, the private meeting. it has not existed for years. the mission reports going back decades according to them the last time we had something close to a democratic election in russia was in march of 2000, the even that is debatable. but according to them, that was the last time. -- every election since has fallen into the democratic sector.

-- standard. so let us keep this in mind. whatever the official figures and percentages announced yesterday, this should not disguise the fact that in those rare cases when russian voters actually have an option of voting for real opposition candidates, they do. let us remember ha in 2013 alexander viley received 80% of the vote. boris actually won an election becoming the first nonsystemic russian leader to win a seat in the legislature. this is in 2013. many opponents, and good friends these official figure are very little relevance to the actual situation. id. don't than those percentages help them in any way.

let's keep in mind that those official figures in the real situation are actually very different things. there are much better indicators of public opinion then the figures announced last night. the kremlin appears to be so terrified and so afraid of the prospect of mass protest on the streets of russia. it is quite ironic that a regime that is so afraid of such a its citizensiving its best leading its citizens not a way of expressing opposition to the government than to go out into the street. quite we have seen videos

balloons and objects being placed by cameras or monitors. this is kind of information acceptable in russia? >> absolutely. some elections. >> not just in st. petersburg or moscow but also the provinces? >> sure. there are many such cases. people are sharing the videos and talking about them, but the reason i think about make as much as a remnant best restaurants is because this election was rigged long before. this time, this was not the decisive way to alter the election results.

think actually he formulated it the type of said regime we have in russia today is a closed model authoritarian regime. what he meant is they are much more creative and intelligent. back in soviet times, when you went to vote, you would receive a ballot which had one name on it. you and take it and put it in a box. there are some countries that do that like china and north korea. when we received our bomblets -- ballots yesterday, in reality, there was a names, but in reality, it was only the one. let's there is projection of 2%

growth. in power for his third or fourth term. will he move? we should not expect any economic reform. it, putin hasfor in no way talked about economic reform. >> theseo clear

companies sell companies for 1/10 of the market value. in particular, for public procurement. in this way, there is a system where he and his friends probably take out 20 to 25 a -- $20 billion or $25 billion a year from the state companies. -- who is still active in politics. nothing has been done about it. this system goes on. this money goes out of russia. if you take all money that was out of russia it is $40 billion

or $50 billion a year. --s is been going on since now that $1 trillion of russian private money. this whole system guarantees putin's power. he held the money abroad. it is not for the maintenance of his power. he cannot change the system because then the people that were in the bread line would start supporting -- i do not see any ability for reform. what he -- possibility for reform. then he wonder if this is an occasion if it can hold. what is learned and 98 in his financial crisis is bad because

then the government disappears. he does not want to be a political destabilization coming from financial instability. macroeconomics stability but low economic growth. economic growth. in the last couple of years, it -- instead he talks about the economic stability, low inflation, international results etc.. and low unemployment. not about getting higher economical growth. the consensus is 1.5% to 2% growth.

it could be worse. what is happening now is that his friends are buying more enterprises. the same is happening with the state corporations. the same is happening with the biggest a corporations. in particular, the big state .ank this means that the efficient economy is declining. a typical example, russia is a wonderful -- has a wonderful big grocery chain that is been there for 20 years. now, it has decided to sell 29% ? the state bank for $2.5 billion.

then you wonder, can russia really keep growing at the 1.5% a year? open his options for on the one hand a policy of peace in ukraine on terms that would be reasonable or an alternative? hope itould like to calming down to

from the postured confrontation, but i'm not sure it will. prove ation did not lot. there was no room choice. there's still some genuine popularity. that is been happening since the invasion of crimea and was basically the theme of the holy election campaign. and even with the residents of the pride ofand the average motor in russia being on his knees and all of that, it is pretty shallow. it is pretty grudging. with all of the efforts they made fort turnout even using coercion and one would assume even some fudging of the votes itself, it was not the most

impressive of turnouts even after they ridiculed all of the other candidates. i'm not so sure that they're comfortable with this moving forward. some of the polls will show a certain caution about further adventures and the cost of the ongoing adventures in ukraine. in particular, casualties which are still a very sensitive issue. so there may be discomfort in as thee years of russia slayer of dragons standing up to the west, but i'm not sure putin understands that yet. thatpectation is not only he will underperform but he is still determined to maintain the control. he is a control freak and wants to maintain the basic

structures. on foreign policy come i think think thentinue to deceased fortress, russia standing up to the west, is in termsood strategy of domestic support and it seems to beginning in the west. the west is in disarray. he is in touch with his ministers of propaganda, so i don't think he sees that much incentive to pull back in the short-term. the --, ones to could argue it has not turned out as well as he anticipated. the ukrainians got their act together and it is a stalemate. not a total failure. is leverage and terms of

destabilization. so stay where he is, neither escalating nor the escalating. when it comes to the arms race that he so oblivious lady the andd on march 1, at of the day he cannot afford these. a lot of them is a waste of money because our missile defense is far less capable than he continues to portray. he is not looking for a direct conflict with nato. but that does not mean he is not going to keep this up in the short-term. he might leave the r&d going system mayw weapon have some spillover effect on the rest of the economy although i doubt that. basically, i see him continuing on the track he is on. continuing trying to boost russian influence in the police. trying to play a zero-sum spoiler role.

the question is, whether it some point during the six-year term the pressures of economic stagnation and popular discontent over that will begin to manifest itself in a more coherent way than it has to date. i don't think anybody believed his campaign promises about improving living standards or health care or education. they've heard that before. it goes down the ladder of world economic powers. not competing with article in tylan. if there could be a moment when it begins to affect the economy and he asked if pullback with a more conciliatory approach to the west -- i don't see that happening in the near term. beyond the internal contradictions, i think of the west, the u.s. and europe acting together, could maintain and

increase insurance and puts feeding offrussia of the script how event -- the skripal event.he we could make the case it is time to increase pressure on russia. the homeland is not good enough to have the hunt gary and's and others, like the italians, in support of the existing sanctions and if it added to the sanctions regime, maybe a bridge too far. so we could influence it but i'm skeptical the west has its act together and that includes the united states, of course. to actually but significantly increased pressure might change six years.next

>> you mentioned something that has been very much the news. kripal and hisof s daughter. that assumes putin continues to have a very high tolerance for risk. to expect the same going forward? wrecks i think the fact that either he specifically did it or he allowed whatever, standing orders, of agents to be executed at this seemingly upward time, it suggests this he finance, the west can't touch me, the west to theespond effectively challenges i'm posing, i think that is what the messages he was sending to the west and to russian voters and unfortunately the russian voters were taken by that to some degree, it may have even boosted the turnout. so that reinforces my judgment he is likely to stay.

argue that, do not we should not test them. i would love to be run on this. we should continue to push for peacekeeping forces that could implement minsk and impose risk reduction measures and other ways to risk -- reduce the risk of the military which has been .etting out pretty much we must find ways to significantly increase the pressure. >> i assume when you referred to putin and part as "the terminator" you had in mind skripal. what are your thoughts on that operation and what it means for pollutants mindset moving forward -- four putin's mindset movingputin's mindset

forward. >> irrespective of who ordered it is already viewed by the russian elite that is moving back and forth between russia and the west. the warning that says, don't you dare. we are watching you. and, we cannot forget any kind of attempt to be a traitor. treason will be punished. the united states is so active with the central regime trying elite.uence the russian this is kind of a message to those people who put these interests and sanctions. you know, folks, just stay, otherwise, you know, our punishment could be much worse

than their punishment. and i am looking at them. [laughter] >> so this is how it is spring -- being viewed now. that will probably influence the behavior of the russian establishment. >> an interesting point. win-winhis looks like a situation. this is a mobilization of . russians the abroad get scared.

so this is a real win, very clever by putin. >> very briefly on that point about not doing anything more. a responsibleing we action to those things. provided by this country little more than five years ago on 2012 when the united states can came the first country in the world to introduce a groundbreaking principle, really a simple principle of feud a good about it. but more groundbreaking when it came about and that was the principal of responsibility for those abuses of human rights violation for corruption and other things like that should be actually applied most to the people perpetrating them. i'm talking about the magnitsky act that was passed in 2012. the principle behind that law

was that individuals who engage in corruption, human rights abuses, will no longer be allowed to receive the says or use the banking system of western countries because that is what they do. there's been this phenomenal hypocrisy and phenomenal double standard for years. what about the people? the oligarchs who undermine and attacked the most basic norms and russia went to enjoy the privileges of democracy for themselves send families. schools, wives, mistresses and western countries opening bank accounts. they want to the in russia and spend it the west. they still do not have a magnitsky act. they have an amendment which allows the government and some cases to freeze the assets but not even close to the law that exists here. there are four countries now

after the u.s. that have followed and passed similar measures, canada and the three baltic states. the former soviet republics that border russia. those types of sanctions come of responses, first of all they are rate in principle. haveany of our colleagues long advocated for this approach because we don't leave in general sanctions against our own country. it does not make sense to punish an entire country for the actions of a few unelected. it is a more effective approach because frankly dental care about russia is a country. they'll care about russian nationals. they would like to show him as defending the motherland. he is nothing of the sort.

it is bank accounts. we hold that more western democracies, including that united kingdom will take this edition and send that clear message that the people who human rightsolate and engage in corruption will no longer be welcome on their soil and in their banks. i just came back from scandinavian country, denmark, meeting with them. there is a movement in those countries to do something similar and we're certainly in touch with many members of the british parliament where the goal is achieving something of that sort. include, how many more signs to see u.k. need to do something about this? you are talking about the poisoning case. last week on the british government announced they are now going to review 14 cases of

suspicious deaths of russian citizens on british soil. where were they before? when alexander was killed in 2006, a british soldier meeting it took his -- widow nine years to go through the judicial system to force the british government to even inquire about it. a whistleblower, a healthy .4-year-old guy there is still an inquiry going on nearly six years afterwards. and many, many other such cases. associate, nikolay, who died as -- of strangling. where were they before? the mentality of the people, they say there's no such thing as a former operative kgb

officer. hopefully we will finally see some reaction up. >> its troop about that british .tiff upper lip but to flip things a little bit, certainly yesterday's result was not a surprise. where do you see the russian opposition going in terms of getting the message out? >> frankly nothing changes. this was not a rope political event, this was just a state show. we continue working. the main direction of our work has not changed. preparationske the about future post-putin transitions. this is the main focus of all of our work in various ways. evil say, putin is so entrenched. people say, prednisone

trends. it is ridiculous to think about future. i say, it is shortsighted and ridiculous not to. major political changes in our country can happen quickly and unexpectedly. i january 22, 1917, lenin made a speech to the yellow social democrats in zurich and's the younger said, my generation will not live to see that. six weeks later, the federation felt down. i'm young enough to remember this myself. a regime that stood for 77 years went down in three days. three days. that is how things happen in russia. the downside is, nobody is ever prepared. so what we are doing now is trying to make the groundwork. make those preparations. we're doing that in two ways, both equally important.

one way is to work on some of the substance of the future reform proposals that will need to be implemented during that transition. we have several working groups that up produced expert reports and various areas. constitutional reform, economic, energy, and other areas. just as important, we actually worked a lot with the younger generation. the new generation of democratic and civil society activists in russia. the below spent their whole lives under vladimir putin. don't forget, people came to vote for the first time in the russian election yesterday were born under vladimir putin. this is how long his been in power. few minutes ago this is going to be the fourth term for putin. not let this be his fifth

time. but seriously consider president medvedev. no one knows what it's like to have a real election and wretch am. no one knows what it's like cap independent television and russia. we're working with various educational programs to try to help them learn some of the skills and we feel this is important because nothing is forever. neither is putin and his regime. we must wait the groundwork for what will happen. this will be the focus moving forward. >> or have been a couple news stories suggesting russian millennials were actually voting for putin. i'd appreciate your comment. >> i would say we should not consider those official results from yesterday is any kind of a

serious indicator. what we do know about millennials is how many of them took to the streets this past year all across russia to actively protest against putin. to protest against the government and russia's not like her testing against president trump with freedom of assembly where you are guarded and protected by police. in russia, you are being up by police if you protest. people thousands of still went to the streets all across the country in 200 towns and cities. , the first wave of then most and recently at the end of that general election in january. we'll see what happens in the next few days. other memoriesno

of the then vladimir putin so we don't know how they would of boat in a real election because we don't have a real election but more and more are prepared despite intimidation and propaganda, to god and show they have a different vision for russia. not a russia governed by a corrupt, authoritarian isptocracy but where there the of law and free government and elections. leave some interesting statistics. 59% of the russian people don't want russia to be a great power except as an eczema kforce, not military. -- and not paper crimea from the russian budget. new indicators suggest where russian policy may go. they seem not to but -- smallseems to me to be a

footnote to what was just said on the younger generation. we cannot trust polls. who can trust polls? and at least 30% of them said always.'t tell truth ok? this is very important. but according to last year in the year before, approximately 65% of young people between 19-24 years old are pollutants generation. -- are pollutants generation -- putin's generation. takeof them would probably intellectual action against people across the country. said this is frustrating. regarding the poll, the one hand

two thirds of russians consider russia to be surrounded by enemies. two thirds. you know, of course the united states, european union, and the ukraine. time, for instance outsources security functions inside of the country. and in syria. to get mercenaries from other outlets, etc.. russia does not want confrontation and sacrifice. but overall, you have to say that situation with the society is pretty nasty. people are demoralized after 16 years of this kind of propaganda. people of lost that trajectory.

options we discussed earlier, when this transformation and and another is collapse of the system. there's a third way. russia on the way to degradation is peoplelization have cognitive dissonance. they want change. 70% of russians all the time said they want change. they say, we want different change. radical change. the majority says we want change from the top. but at the same time they cannot produce change. and this is by the way the difference between us and ukrainians. ukrainians don't wait for change from the top, ok? so different national identity and mentality. so constant dissonance at least arouses hope that the country is

not entirely sedentary. no, not at all. bags i want to follow up on the magnitsky act -- >> i want to follow up on that magnets he act -- magnitsky act. blocks people from entering western countries. it frees that essence. as a mentioned before, that its -- holdings abroad are about $1 trillion. the estimates go to $3 trillion. these are in anonymous companies. then you ask the question, where you have rule of law? where can you have anonymous companies? where'd you have sufficient

structures? first it goes to cyprus from russia then to virgin islands, then to cayman islands, and then to two countries. the united states and the united kingdom. because these are the two these threeat meet criteria. rules of law, anonymous companies allowed on a big scale and significant financial source. so the reasonable guesses that awayf the russian hidden is in these two countries. the u.s. treasury published a report three years ago and said launderedbillion is into this country every year. as you can hear, that is the big

estimate. that is big. publishedin recently a corresponding number. 125 alien dollars here. $125 billion a year. get those coming from russia in into each of these countries, you wonder how much of this is being caught. just about zero because we don't know who owns these companies. cell shell companies before they set up new shell companies ,nd delaware, south dakota elsewhere. the money can be taken in also through real estate. real estate is excluded from the patriot act of 2001 to clean up

the banking system. the u.s. banking system is very clean. thanks. cleaned it out to the patriot act. why not do away with exemptions for real estate in the patriot act? throughght to be ways law firms. because money is covered by attorney-client privilege. so these are massive amounts of u.s. anding in to the in a similar way into britain. if theresa may were serious now about doing something after the poisoning, she should rule on anonymous companies. david cameron organized a big

international meeting against corruption in britain in may 2016. it turned out 29% of european companies do not allow anonymous companies. david cameron made the case that britain should forbid anonymous companies, but one month later he said in the brexit referendum raisin --ay found new reason not to doing nothing about it, even now. laugh.ves people a good it is our issue today to make sure they've stopped laughing. thank you. >> i will give each of you another chance to make a comment before we turn to the audience. any comments? >> yes.

a really dramatic story. story.r story, five-year lastretty sure it would putin's tenure. there are so many traps putin has created for himself. he definitely cannot leave the kremlin. we can understand why. at the same time, a country, the elite, society are already tired of them. the major talk being not reform, not economy. who will succeed putin? is he going to leave, is there any other way to get rid of him? this kind of agenda will pursue him tell the end. this is his major trap. there are already two other traps created under his guidance and leadership. you understand we need change and change cannot come from the

top. in this situation, the only way change is from below. and another thing that is probably the key guaranty of , ourcurrent status quote fear. fear and apprehension. up ranch what? i still don't understand why this would mean preservation of russia in the current geographical state. in thee transform russia open state? this is an open question. >> on the international aspect of the so-called election that took place yesterday, we are trying to see how many of the leaders of western democracies called putin to congratulate him. this is a long-running issue. i mentioned going back to at

least the year 2003 during the first parliament terry election as assessed by being not fair by european observers, more than 50 years now elections are assessed as not free, fair, and credit by outsides at each time observers make those determinations the leaders of tose countries, they called congratulate mr. putin on presumably another successful election. quite appropriately this morning, a bunch of foreign leaders called to congratulate him. one, xi jinping, all very big democrats as we know. , i was justy talking to anders at maybe it's

been updated -- as of the start of this as i'm the present -- the president of germany and the chancellor of germany has called putin to congratulate and so has the president of france. puzzled as tory how those two things make sense. one official observer missions in the head of the mission is she had mayben -- other reasons not to congratulate him to there should be reasons connected to the way this so-called election was conducted. on western leaders do that they are in effect congratulating mr. putin on a successful farce. and related to me was the statement by the justice who congratulated not only mr. putin but the people of russia on the presidential election. i must say to you appears either

as a mockery when we hear that from a leader of a western democratic country. >> well stated. >> we can hear. we can hear. >> how would you explain the voted for vladimir putin? ont is your parties decision the russian language schools?

regime.y yourou going to use influence in the west -- are you going to -- what is your opinion on its effects? the propaganda? they are using it as we speak. thank you. >> thank you for the question. we have people with very different views. left, right, liberal, social. we are not yet in that stage in our country. we are looking forward to having this kind of differences. we're not very basically having free election. having the rule of law,

independent judicial system. these are issues we are working on end involved in. so we have positions on many things. if you want my own personal view, i believe people should the freedom to educate their children how they wish in the language of their twice. it has been frankly astonishing to see that, usually if you take election results -- and i'm not talking about these manipulated elections under owenton but even when we had really elections in russia, if you look at the results of elections of how russian citizens have them in democratic nations, have they usually vote, you would see that the vast majority are

significant majority would vote for the liberals in the pro-democracy parties. win elections among russian citizens living abroad. big one big exception, that exception three baltic states. they would have huge numbers, i don't liveties, in a baltic say, so i don't presume to be able to explain the reason. but i think one of the factors in my personal view is that for too long the baltic states have neglected to develop a national media outlet, television

channels in the russian language. by failing to do that they have left the field open for kremlin propaganda. the only russian language broadcasting available. myfor years, i would say in view this is very short-cited. you are seating the ground for russian pollutants propaganda. i'm happy to say in recent years baltic states,ee i can certainly speak for latvia and estonia, on their national public television channels in russia and on other channels -- like lt seven, right? -- i think in estonia the channel is called a to b plus. there are people who know much

better than i. in recent years i think the baltic states have begin to to help stopage the spread of putin's hateful propaganda. >> thank you. over here. >> i would like to build up on the question from the ambassador. as developing nuclear weapons, it was never to be used. securitye secret --ncil, nuclear weapons were

provided russia with the right to proclaim itself a superpower. with the developments lately, the recent developments, we see intentional starting to crank up for a confrontation with the west. and our common friend said and an article that now with a new putin, this putin does not want to become friends with the west. he is willing to use nuclear weapons in force comes to worst. do think he is correct? >> just very briefly, to answer your question. apparently they are going to .iscuss this topic i do not believe president putin kamikazed into a total

in the way of his own suicide and state suicide. yes, he used a nuclear missile reference but at the same time if you look at the developments and records of the kremlin during the last couple of days, dashes narrative and the narrative was used definitely for domestic threats. now he wants to step back. now he starts even to wine. listen. you didn't understand is. and maybe now we can do the bargain. so i will not say this missile rhetoric is an instrument to force the west to escalate in order to deescalate. the problem, russian nuclear part of all of cautiousoric is pretty

about preempting and etc. the problem is that putin has gone to escalate too much without western readiness bargain and cannot have exit solutions. cannot deescalate. so what the is going to do is, he does not bargain. for the last couple of days he has tried to calm down. tried to backtrack. maybe you know. >> i would agree with that. i do not think putin is suicidal. at the and of the day i think he still wants to maintain a certain mutual deterrence with the united states and note nato. and i think this whole hybrid warfare, in the middle east, where he sees openings and in

decisiveness he can take advantage of. all that being said, think he does believe some of his own propaganda about u.s. intentions and that capacity of u.s. strategic forces to mount a successful first strike. i think he has been sold a lot of bs by his intelligence services and by the russian military but i do think he has a specific paranoid nightmare attempt with our missile defense sites transformed into offensive sites without anybody knowing. so the situation there for us fragile. hisay take steps based on paranoia they could be in action-reaction cycle. so we have to do what we can to keep the new start agreements alive, maybe even extended.

there is a risk of miscalculation and at the end of the day though he is not suicidal. i think the main area where we have to be better is where he is eating our lunch. >> let me continue on the same line. i think this is a very dangerous situation. power. nuclear it used to be number eight in terms of gdp in the world. now it is number 11. u.s. measure in gallons, a and it is the military expenditure biggest after the u.s. send china. it is a declining power. [indiscernible]

anothering this is just balkan war that we have had a couple of before. we could have war by accident where putin thinks it is not .angerous always said the putin respect the party of five in the statutes but the danger is in the performance of the republican props in the middle east where it is not clearly defined. accidents can happen. atlanticth the council. i wanted to compliment you on your dry sense of humor mentioning real estate was

whoheld without mentioning the president vice president of the bank of cyprus was. my question is this, supposed putin actually has more leverage on us than we have on him. suppose he can exploit the american constitutional processes which it enables intervention. havendeep pointed out, we been derelict and not responding to his measures. it is inconceivable we have led with so much.way i don't think he is this idea of going to the war with the west. it is absolute nonsense but he does remember in the west is where technology was created and quite frankly, you look at russian defense expenditures which are modest, ours will be huge of congress gets its act

together it will be $1.5 trillion of the next two years. vladimir putin may be forcing us to spend far more money than we can afford. he also might have leverage over donald trump. you can imagine the trolls and information that links mr. miller and the investigation much more closely to mr. pahrump and mr. miller fired by mr. trump. there are all sorts of weaknesses that i think mr. putin as a former intelligence agent understands. i want your reaction to the hypothesis that perhaps mr. putin has more leverage on us than we have on him and if that is the case, what do we do to turn that ratio to our favor? >> you had a good question. >> i think the point about putin could force us to spend our

defense budget, lavish as it is, on the wrong thing. there is some of that that we should not be taken in by the wonder weapon speech talking about what it takes to maintain stable deterrent balances well focusing on rebuilding our military so we can more capably deter both in europe and conventional board europe and project power globally rebuilding our fleet and our air force, etc. there is inherent asymmetry with the system and russia where you have one decision-maker who can use asymmetric means of propaganda and corruption and using corruption as a tool can if we don't find a better way to defend ourselves and have more western consensus on how to do that, can explain opportunities

in an opportunistic way to our disadvantage. the problem i think is us, not him. we have to assume he is like a burglar who will push on every door and hotel till he finds one that is unlocked. he will continue to do this until he finds a way both to -- until we find a way to both educate our social media users come get social media platforms to not let him exploit them as successfully as he has, and more fundamentally overcome some of the issues in our own domestic politics that are simply being exploited by the russians. that is a tall order given the polarization of american allah which is only getting worse, not better. at the end of the day, the problem is us. putin.ot i think he is an opportunist but we can defend ourselves. >> i would agree. for putin, it's the problem of

the west? i would say one thing. i'm absolutely sure, absolutely sure that the kremlin and russia and putin would've never gone to crimea and crimean annexation would've never happened as part revolution in ukraine. has always been considered part of the russian body, etc.. if putin in the kremlin were not sure that the west german americans, a lot of putin and kremlin rhetoric and action is based on their perception of the west and at least in 2015, the perception was the russian political elite and it seems to be in the kremlin, before the west it was the west could be bought, frightened, and

controlled and the perception was based, apparently, on putin's experience in dealing with the western police. apparently, perception became real after 2015 but this perception is now one of the key lines of the updated russian foreign policy strategy which says, the people of the west and america, apparently something kremlin toin and the this conclusion. >> we got that. i completely agree on your question. the answer and broad terms is transparency. we specific reason why cannot allow all these anonymous companies. they are a grave danger to national security in these countries. >> on this point, whatever it leverage putin might have on the

leverage the is west says on putin. i remember when kislyak was passed, the kremlin sanction some of that u.s. senators. whateverccain said happens come i won't cancel my vacation plans and burbank or so -- sochi. though the united states was the first of the magnitsky act, it is still in the did quite timidly. there is also the foreign corrupt practices act, more of which you should be hearing about. there are others that more use could be made up. it is this type of personal leverage that is so effective. that is because people treat

western countries is there air filled. that is the leverage it you have. i hope you'll use it more than you are doing now. >> where we taking action? challenge the premise of your first question. i think whatever the kremlin did in regard to our election, it has not turned out well for them. yes, there is some disorder but on the other hand, they turned the more specific part of this country, that democrats, it into very small cold wars against the kremlin. has pursuedesident a policy toward the kremlin which is stronger and from my standpoint, much better than his democratic predecessor.

i believe there is greater knowledge in our political class of the danger presented by the kremlin and that was in our national security structure which named russia as one of the two major dangers to the united states. i think in that, fact our political class is much smarter today on this question than they were two years ago. my sense is that we've been working energetically in the space for the last four years. people understand the problem much better. that has translated into action like the sanctions legislation last summer. washe supply of -- which decided in december. so things are moving in the right direction. the overall political landscape in the west is more complex.

the election in italy you referred to as a problem. the election in france last year was a great success. so i think the circumstances are not nearly as dark as this discussion suggests and with that you can come back to me later. >> i am from -- of lithuania. in baltic results states, one baltic state has done 5%, another 93 present, another it if i present. i am not an inexpert position to comment on that that to note i am still old enough to remember those times when lithuania also voted 96%, 98% during soviet times. i appreciate the recommendation regarding russian speaking in lithuania. my wife is pharmacist.

20%-50% of all the sales she does is to russians acres. it is not i think a problem. frequentonment, visitors, if they can order -- mycernible] we can question is back to the questioner regarding this discussion, what is next in the presidential term westmark usually the kremlin media sends the signal. today there was much kremlin controlled media about the results on what does it mean. also from the officials. maybe to elaborate, what kind of message after already the results were live, what kind of messages are sent to west by the kremlin? >> i will start because first

follow-up have been watching this for the last two days, i mean, the problems. it seems to me that the talkshow on the russian major channels, they still have this and ownership. you know, well, enter western, enter u.k., enter american. but look, already the news are given a much softer line. putin once unity. us inponents should join our mission to rebuild the community. we must work together. the domestic venture richard bhushan and on the outside world, they are going to cut millet -- and on the outside world they are going to cut military expenditures. they want negotiations with the outside world.

after the missile talk. which means he is just sending out some impulses. to see whether he can find some leastf consensus with at germany, the united states. i'm not sure what kind of message he is sending to the u.k. it looks like the russian pop -- it looks like the russian propaganda team pews them as something they can just be ignored. -- who said putin will no president or maybe we should more appropriately say "fuhrer" and indicated maybe it is time to change the constitution so he could not sit forever.

putin also said he will not change the government on the question about the prime minister after he had been inaugurated which has been in may and leads to discussion of if putin will hang gone, which personet or if a younger who is a favorite, alternative, will turn to the minister of industry but i believe you cannot be week. things are changing. >> why change constitutions? you can stay without changing. assad two hands. we will get those questions -- i oought to hands -- i saw tw

get thosell questions. >> i'm a journalist. to i very much for everything. presentation. notwithstanding the fact it is accepted by almost everybody putin is around for the perceivable future, there is just general speculation about a supposed putin future, what might that look like but we are still underestimating him as a student of russian society. he has been remarkably consistent from the beginning. he is constantly ratcheted up his admission control over russia, often by surprising his opponents. this is why i think this skripal poisoning is so surprising. he plays by his roles and those change.

it also, corruption not only as a tool by which he controls the ruling elite and enriches -- and enriches himself, but the entire society. corruption coerces but it 2012 when many people inside and outside of russia wrote him off, we see today that the young russians are just as nationalistic if not more than the rest of society. i will repeat. are we perhaps underestimating his ability to control society or appoint a chosen successor? >> it seems to me -- to respond to putin. regarding corruption, putin,

apparently having exhausted all previous tricks and instruments, -- he started this struggle with corruption of his own regime. we have corruption of all levels. machines, governors, power structures, etc. this is a wonderful idea that could distract -- for some time. kindness is evident. this cannot exist for a long time and he understands it. he is tired with exception of one thing. he endorsed foreign policy. the rest became a distraction he doesn't like. >> you mentioned that mr. putin has been known to surprise very often.

although sometimes mr. putin himself is greatly surprised. when there were 100,000 people in the streets of moscow to protest against him. we were surprised too. if someone told me that we would have more than 100,000 people standing across the road from the kremlin, i would not have believed it. they did unexpected on the other side of the long. it happened -- of the wall. it happened. don't underestimate the ability of russian civil society to throw surprises. it is not all about putin and his regime. there are many people in russia. we know there are many people in russia who reject this regime. even if we forget everything else, the corruption in the abusers who are tired of seeing the same face on tv all the time.

to hear from people who say putin will be there for a long time if not forever -- i am a historian by education. we try to look at the bigger picture. big picture changes in russia in the last half-century have happened by surprise. let's not underestimate the possibility of surprises in russia, not just the kremlin but russian society. >> i completely agree that putin has proved himself a tactical politician. all of these choices have led in one direction. the last reform of significance from putin was the pension

reform in january 2005. he learned i will not do any more reform. what you get when you do that -- [inaudible] in many ways i have the same feeling when i go to moscow. my friends are wary of eternal exile. they realize that the world has

become a kind of therapy. you can't do that for a long time because the system becomes too fragile. i think putin looks at corruption is a useful tool. when people said, everybody knows how to manage it because he knows how to fix things. they don't really [inaudible] people live very well, but it is different on the margin. people suffer from corruption.

we assume it corruption everywhere is very disliked. but you don't do that in society. the final argument, why do i think this can't hold? it is the enormous arrangement. what we have seen is the formation of a new feudal class.

there were a lot of pieces within the sector. they got very angry when they saw we were passed by. there are too few people who benefit too much you can say it is pre-1917 russia. >> i agree that we should not underestimate putin by any means. he has been in power for 19 years which shows his tactical dexterity. i believe he is ultimately bored with domestic policy and would like to make his mark primarily

in terms of external policy. i don't think we will see any serious reforms. the whole system is built on corruption. and it is part of his ability to control developments on russia's periphery is based on having corrupt links that he can exploit. he has played a we can very skillfully. think of the west is beginning to learn some lessons in getting its act together after that experience in 2014. but i'm still skeptical that the west is united enough to actually changes calculus on

some of the key issues that have caused a breakdown in relations with russia. we should take it with a grain of salt. he is certainly interested in negotiation and peace with the west but on russia's terms. don't underestimate him, he will be a tough challenge going forward. the last protest last year were impressive, and the fact that he has left people no alternative but protest to express themselves. whether that will reach the boiling point in the next few years i'm not so sure.

he is delivering just enough to divide and disrupt efforts by the opposition to better organize itself. he surpassed brezhnev. will he surpassed stone? -- stalin? >> stalin had an idea about communism. there is no russian without putin. that line is the most insulting thing you can say about our country. but they are saying that openly. >> thank you for coming. [applause]

c-span's washington journal's live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, republican congresswoman will be with us discussing the future of the mueller investigation. also, a look at the shakeup among trumps national security team and the government funding deadline. joining us will be pennsylvania democratic congressman brendan boyle. they will discuss the trump presidential campaign that took an cap data on 50 million facebook users. be sure to watch washington

journal live at 7:00 eastern of this morning. join the discussion. live tuesday on the c-span networks, the house returns for general speeches at 10:00. at noon, members take up legislation regarding banks and financial regulations. work on a bill to stop online sex trafficking and go to a debate calling a resolution calling for the president to remove u.s. armed forces from the conflict in yemen. at 10:00, betsy devos testifies before the house appropriation subcommittee on her budget request. our podcast, c-span's of the weekly takes you behind the headlines to explain in depth significant news stories giving the conversation in washington and around the country.

hear from leading journalists and policymakers providing context. find the weekly on the free c-span radio app as well as itunes, it are, and google play, and online anytime at c-span.org .the commander of the air force next, former government officials on the syrian civil war. institute of peace host of this event and why the u.s. and other countries should stay engaged. it also address security challenges in that country. joshua johnson hosts the event and moderates. >> shell we? >> hi everybody. welcome to foreign policy in america abroad. i am joshua johnson, i am the host of one a