-- here's a look on look at all of our programming. the houses in it 9:00 a.m.. he is also expected to give an for policy for the trump administration and a finance meeting that starts at noon. ♪ washington journal live every day with news and policy issues. coming up today, texas republican on the finance republican funding bill line. and jamie raskin talks about legislative efforts to reduce gun violence efforts. be sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern this morning. join the discussion. a former u.s. ambassador to the ukraine moderated a discussion

on vladimir putin. this is 90 minutes. >> my name is john i run the eurasia center. we have a wonderful event this afternoon. inhad an election yesterday russia, which had a result that was not unexpected. nuances there that are worth exploring. we have a wonderful panel to provide an explanation for you for you.poor asian we have bios. let us introduce them from our left. the -- one of finally we have a great economists when it comes to the russian economy.

with that i would like to give them the first word, and the significant take of last year's election and going forward for russian politics. >> it is a pleasure and fun to be a part of this panel. i will give you a couple of brushstrokes. there are obsessed in a crude way. of course everybody understood -- understood that the national election was a plebiscite. all presidential candidates understood what kind of game they were taking part. putin running against someone, no he was running against himself. aroundroval rating was 100%. he cannot make a vote.

the impression that he has a satisfactory victory. results, against 64% in 2012. intainly is putin get satisfactory -- after the --? that situation theuite a situation, and legitimacy is probably short-lived. that is why we are -- we had a desperate campaign when president putin rejected the previous legitimate see and the prior -- and the previous role and shifted at the end of march to the new role and function. defender of the russian state of

terminator,and ready to take over the global chessboard. it is the decision of the last several weeks. will russia the elites, and the society except this legitimacy, how long insist datable, and gerbil this legitimate seat could be. i will give you this of the end of 2017, not now but seven -- 2017. we have a view of what russia should be. russians were saying that the major goal of the russian -- onlyd foreign policy wouldnsider that russia

stop the u.s. aggression. only 14% contest sitter that it -- onlyld stop 14% consider that russia should stop expansion. 56% of russians do not agree that crimea should be paid out of the russian budget. it is quite possible that the new legitimate -- the new idea as defender of the motherland and militarism, and playing around will be supported i the russian society. with thenish conclusion, it is quite possible that the new presidential term will be a kind of time when you pretty --midable and

and a conflict between putin's survival between the agenda and the personal power on the other hand. the system has -- it wants to insulate russia from the west. partyl -- so far putin's has undermined the key principles of the current state and its survival. i would say that president putin will be presiding over his last chapter, as part of this energy on the surface. we see the political scene that will be change. they willsition, vanish. the older generation will go to the cemetery. and now the kremlin is going to fill the back with new people.

they knew the russian position would try to bring new resistance and alternatives to putin's regime and state. thank you. interesting.ally i would like to ask you one follow-up question. you say that he seems to be putting himself on a course to challenge the current system. can you be it -- can you give a more detailed to that? the message -- if the method of survival that has been created after the collapse of the soviet union was to use western resources, finances, technology. to build together with the west, it is very possible and rather cynical. putin, by his arrogance

undermined this very prerequisite of the system's survival. vladimir europe and heavily engaged in opposition politics. his call for boycott. how do you look at the results of the selection in light of that. thank you for the invitation to be here. first it's a question of terminology. there are many ways to describe what has happened in russia. an election is not one of them, but we insist on using that word. election isa real when you are certain about the procedures and not the outcome. procedures and rules have been shifted. goodo-called election is a

example of that. it was supposed to be on the 11th of march but they changed it to coincide with the annexation of the crimea. the rules are shifting and the end result is never in doubt. when the final official figures were announced, it was very similar to what we have been reading about and newspapers for weeks. but thet only the name, figures were known well in advance. yesterday, several opposition groups including our movement in beena and others have conducting extensive monitoring of the election. they documented the usual plethora of the message that putin's regime is done for. organize carousel voting, dead people voting,

people voting under threats and many other things. i can speak on that in detail, but all of these violations are largely irrelevant, because this election was rigged long before. it is not difficult to win an election when you're opponents are not actually on the ballot. the defining feature of the election yesterday is that they two two -- there were people to run against two. one was in anticorruption activist. neither of them were on the ballot, one of them because they were killed on a bridge. the other one was deliberately barred from running that was barred by the european council for your rights.

-- european council for rights. i, again, would say it is worth recording that no -- in an election. few hours ago, in moscow, the head of the international election observation presented the official findings of their mission. is as responsible for elections and has been the gold standard for decades. their conclusions are similar to what i just described to be my own view. they said that there was no real competition, no real choice and went as far as to say, and ford international state -- for an international diplomat it it -- for a international diplomat it is a strong statement, he said that it needed the citizen's ability to change the

government. it is something that has not existed in russia for many years. if we look back at the mission going back decades, according to them, the last time we had something close to a democratic election was in march in 2000, the year mr. putin came to power. even that is debatable. every election since has fallen short of the except the bull democratic standard. -- has all -- has fallen short of the democratic standard. this should not disguise the fact, that in those rare cases that russian voters have an option of voting for real candidates they do. in 2013, alexander received nearly half of the boat. boris ne and election -- won an election in 2013.

-- theser cases official figures and percentages have relevance to the situation. autocrats are good at producing impressive election returns. i don't think those percentages help them in any way. boris was a mutual friend and he likes to remind us, one of them had a 99% approval rating. let us keep in mind those official figures and the real situation are very different things. they are better indicators of public opinion then the figures that have been announced last night. i want to say that there is a -- the kremlin appears to

be terrified and afraid of mass protest. they have been sending those signals for years. counter revolution type scenarios seem to be an absolute nightmare, it is eight ironic. a regime that is afraid of that us -- of such a scenario is leaving its citizens no other way. ofn: we've seen videos talent stuffing, we have seen videos of objects being placed in the way of cameras. are these images, this information accessible in russia? >> absolutely. just like during the election cycles. not just in st. petersburg, but in the provinces? occasions of such that let stuffing has been

really obvious. many other instances of these election day violations. the reason that people are sharing the videos and talking about them, the reason they're not making as much resonance residents as they did back in 2011, is that this election was rigged long before. this -- this time this was not the decisive way to alter the elections. they were pre-selecting the list of shadow boxes who were on the ballot along with putin. one man formulated it best when -- theribed the regime type of regime in russia as a postmodern dictatorship. what he meant by that was they were much more creative and clever in presenting themselves. back in soviet times when you would go to vote in election, you would receive a ballot that

would just have one name on it. he would take that ballot in place it in a box. they're still countries in the world that do that. -- there are still countries in the world that do that. when you came to vote yesterday there were actually eight names on the ballot. in reality, there was still only the one. john: anders, the russian is projected.th putin is in power first fourth term. -- third or fourth. can he move on the economy if you wants to, will he move. think quiteld clearly that we cannot expect any economic reform. that putints for it has in no way talked about economic reform. clear is that the

reform candidate have -- has no chance of becoming prime minister. essentially, none. the system does not except the economic reform. controls a system of over the state corporation, and --n we have state companies on loans that do not have to be paid back. these companies sell for 1/10 of the market value. in particular, public or cure meant. -- public procurement. in this way he has set up a system where he and his friends take out $25 billion a year from

the state companies, about half -- for which are late wrote about in the .ooklet nothing had been done about this. this still goes on. russia.ey goes out of all money that goes out of -- 40, 40 or 50 billion billion dollars or $50 billion a year, it has gone on since the early 90's. $1 trillion of russian private companiess gone into abroad. this system guarantees putin's power. construction, it

is for the maintenance of his power. he cannot change the system because then the people lower down in the breadline, they will stop supporting putin. this i do not see any possibility of reform. then you wonder if this is a situation, can you hold. did in 98, if the financial crisis is bad, then the government disappears. he does not want to see the political to stabilization coming out of instability. is ins slogan is is -- macroeconomics but low economic growth. he is not talked about growth except in agriculture in the last couple of years. it, he talks about --

instead, he talks about low largeion, the international reserves and low unemployment. not about getting higher economic growth. that 2% growth, the concern is one the half to 2% growth. i think it could be worse. what is happening now is that , they are buying more enterprises and the same is happening with the big state corporations in particular the big state bank. means that it is in

decline. example, russia's big rush -- big grocery chain has been built by one chap. now he has decided to sell his 29% to the state rank, which has no -- the state bank which has no confidence in running that. then, you wonder, can russia at the one growing and a half percent to year. perhaps for some time, but this is not how you run it -- run an economy. we spoke about a change in putin's posture from the gather

of russian lands to the defender of the homelands. he is just one, what he sees as a victory. does this open his options to pursue a policy of peace and ukraine, to actually put on the table terms that would be reasonable? or does -- or alternative to pursue more adventurous courses. one would like to hope that it will be an opening for climbing down from the posture of confrontation. i am not so sure it will. theylection showed that did not prove a lot given there was no real choice. showe same time they did some genuine popularity of putin's view and the militant nationalistic mind that he is been presenting since the invasion of crimea.

it was the theme of the whole election campaign. even with the residents for that the average voters and, russia being on its knees, the support is shallow and grudging. with all the efforts they made to boost turnout using coercion and bribery, and one presumes some fudging of the voting. impressivethe most performance, particularly after they ridiculed the alternative candidates. the russian people may be buying this in the short term, i am sure they are comfortable with this going forward. polls that were referred to show a certain caution about further adventures and the cost of the ongoing adventures in eastern ukraine. that means casualties, which is a sensitive issue.

-- there may be discomfort in six more years of russia as terminator or slayer of dragons standing up to the west. i am not sure that putin understands that yet. my expectation is that, not only will he not pursue reform, not because he is still determined to maintain control, he is a control freak and he wants to maintain a basic power structure of autocracy as it stands. on foreign policy he will continue to seek russia standing up to the rest -- to the west is still eight winning strategy -- as a winning strategy. hiss making inroads with misinformation and propaganda. i do not think he sees that many

incentives to pull back from that in the short term. to -- one can argue that it has not panned out as well as he anticipated. the ukrainians got their act together, and it is a stalemate. ukraine fighting with itself and the run-up to elections next year, it is not a total failure. it gives leverage in terms of destabilization. he is,taying where neither escalating or d escalating. -- or d escalating. alating. the arms race that he has announced in march, he cannot afford this. a lot of technologies are a waste of money. they are far less capable than he continues to betray it.

he is not looking for a direct conflict with nato. that does not mean that he will not keep this up in the short term. he may leave that the r&d going into the new weapons system will have a spillover effect on to the rest of the economy. i doubt that. i see him continuing on the track that he is on, continuing to boost russia's influence on the middle east. to play a zero sum. duringger question, is some point in this term, the pressures of economic stagnation and popular discontent will begin to manifest itself in a more coherent way than it has today. i do not think anybody believed his campaign promises about improving education, living standards or health care. they have heard it all before.

there may be a moment where the economy begins to affect his calculations and he has not rolled back in terms of domestic conciliation's towards the west. i do not see that happening in the near term. the question is whether we can influence that decision. i've -- i think it is the u.s. and europe acting together to increase the pressure on russia. ropal --skripal assassination attempt -- i think we can increase the pressure on russia.

the notion of adding to the sanctions may be a bridge too far. we could influence it, but we are skeptical that the west has got it together's -- sufficiently. to put pressure on russia, that might change its calculus. john: you have mention something very much in the news, meaning the poisoning. putinuggests that continues to have a very high tolerance for risk, since he did this just before the election. what can we expect from him going forward? i think the fact that he either specifically did it or allowed said -- standing orders

to be executed at this awkward time. it suggests that this posture of defiance, that the west cannot touch me, that the west cannot respond effectively to the challenges that i am posing. that was the message she was sending to the west and russian voters. the russian voters were taken by that. it boosted the turnout. that reinforces my judgment that he is likely to stay on. i do not argue that we should not test him, and i would like to be wrong on this. we should continue to push for a peacekeeping force, and to propose risk reduction measures it -- to reduce the risk of getting out of control. he has been oblivious to these proposals for the last couple of

years. he will remain so in less we find ways to increase the presser. that when you refer to putin in part as the terminator, you had in mind power. your thoughts on that operation and what that means for putin's mindset going forward. with that agree assessment, at the same time i would like to highlight one dramatic moment. despite whoever ordered it, it was already viewed by russian elites as moving back and forth between russia and the west. it is you'd of a warning of -- it is viewed as a warning of we are watching

you. treason will be punished. the united states is so active with the sanction regime, trying to influence the russia -- the russian elite, this is a message to those people who could be influenced by sanctions. calm,ow folks, just stay otherwise our punishment could theirh worse than punishment. i am looking at death. is been viewed now. this is a new element that will the behavioruence of the russian establishment. john: an interesting point. to me this looks like a win

-win situation. with the mobilization in russia .nd the poisoning second, the u.k. looks completely impotent. which is another win for putin. divided.the west is the russians of broad get scared. it is a win-win, and very clients -- bev -- very clever by putin. the point,ly on people are debating what kind of response and reaction to these things that there should be. -- -- that there should be. the answer was provided by this country in the december of 2012 when the united

states became the first country in the world to introduce a groundbreaking principle in international affairs. it was a simple principle, but groundbreaking. that was a principle that responsibility for those abuses of human rights violations for corruption and other things like that should be applied where it belongs, to the people perpetrating them. the principle behind that law is that those individuals, individuals who are engaged in corruption and human rights abuses will no longer be allowed to receive visas in the western countries. there has been a phenomenal hypocrisy and double standard for years where the people, the officials in the putin regime who undermine and attack the basic morals of democracy in russia want to enjoy the

privileges for themselves and families in the west, for their kids to study in western schools. they want to stay in russia and spend in the west. the united kingdom has been a favorite destination for those people. they still do not have an act. they have a watered down amendment that allows them to freeze their assets. there are four countries that have hollowed in -- have followed in the same measures, canada and the three baltic states. i think those types of sanctions, those types of responses, first of all they are right on principle. many of our concord --

colleagues in the opposition have advocated for this approach. we do not believe in general sanctions against our country, it does not make sense to punish anentire country to go after -- an elite in the kremlin. also, it is a more effective approach because they do not care about russia and the country. his propaganda likes to present him as this defender of the motherland. he is nothing of the sort. all he cares about is his own pockets, his wallet. we hope that more western democracies will take this position and say -- and send that clear message that people who violate human rights or engage in corruption will no longer be welcome on their soil and in their banks. we hope this process continues. i just came back from scandinavian countries.

there is movement in those countries. we are certainly in touch with many members of british parliament with a goal of achieving something of that sort. frankly, how many more signs does the u.k. need to do something like this? last week, the british government said they will review 14 cases of suspicious deaths of russian citizens on british soil. where were they before? a british citizen on british soil with a radioactive substance. it took his widow nine years to go to the judicial system to force the british government to make an inquiry about this. the whistleblower in another

case, a healthy man who went out to jog dropped dead. there is still an inquiry going on. it is going on very reluctantly. many other such cases. there is also the case of -- where were they before? the mentality of the people is that there is no such thing as a former kgb officer. it is better late than never. hopefully, we will see some reaction now. >> it is true that we have been looking for that stiff british upper lip without success. certainly, yesterday's result was not a surprise. where do you see the opposition going now in terms of trying to get their message out? >> nothing changes for us because this was not a real election.

this was just a staged show. the main direction, i can speak for our own movement, will remain unchanged. that is to make preparations for our future post-putin transition. some say he is so entrenched that he is there forever. it is ridiculous. they do not think about what will happen afterwards. it is ridiculous not to. if modern russian history shows us or teaches us anything it is that major political shifts and changes in our country can start happening quickly and quicker than expected. on january 22, 1917, the speech to the young socialist democrat

ended by saying my generation will not live to see this kind of revolution. six weeks later, revolution broke out. august 1991, a communist regime that had stood for years went down in three days. the downside is that no one is ever prepared for a change. what we are doing now is trying to make those preparations. we are doing that in two different ways. one way is to actually work on some of the substance of the reform proposals. we have had several working groups that have produced expert reports in various areas. constitutional reform, energy sector, and we work in other areas as well. the second is as important as the first one is to work with the younger generation.

the new generation of democratic and civil activists. people who spend their whole lives under vladimir putin. those who turned 18 and came to vote in the election yesterday were born under the regime of vladimir putin. this is the fourth term for putin. this is the fifth term considering president medvedev. we have a whole generation that grew up under him. they have no other political memories. we do not know what it is like to have a real election in russia. we are working with them through various training programs to help them learn some of the skills of campaigning and political participation. we feel this is important work because nothing is forever.

neither is mr. putin and his regime. we must lay the groundwork. >> there have been a couple news stories suggesting that russian millennials were actually voting for putin. i would appreciate your comment. >> we should not consider those results from yesterday as any kind of a serious indicator. what we do know about millennials is how many of them took to the streets this last year, all across russia to actively protest against putin. to protest against the government in russia is not like protesting against president trump in the u.s. there were threats. people were threatened from being fired from their jobs and

expelled from universities. 200,000 cities and more. the first wave of protests was about a year ago in june. him so many of those protesters were in their late teens and early 20's. we do not know how they would have voted in a real election because we do not have a real election. more and more, we are prepared to go out and show that they have a different vision of russia in mind, not a russia that is governed by a corrupt, authoritarian government.

>> your first initial remarks, you gave interesting statistics. 59% of the russian people do not want russia to be a great power. 59% should not pay for crimea from the russian budget. do these indicators suggest where russia policy may go? >> it seems a small footnote to what he just said. the younger generation, according to the polls, we cannot trust polls. at least 30% of them say -- this is very important. according to last year and the year before, approximately 65% of young people between 19 and

24 years old are putin's generation. among them, between 5% and 7% would probably take activity against anti-systemic activity. regarding the data, on the one hand two thirds of russians consider russia to be surrounded by enemies. the u.s., ukraine and european union are the worst enemies. at the same time, there is no gut adrenaline to fight them. the kremlin and the state understand that. for instance, the state started to outsource.

the state understand that russia does not want confrontation. overall, we have to say that people are demoralized after nearly 15 to 16 years of this zombie propaganda. people have lost trajectory. between the two options we discussed earlier, one is transformation and the other is the unravel and collapse of the system. there was a third way, russia in the way of degradation and demoralization. people have cognitive dissonance. on the one hand, they will not -- they say we want different change. a radical change.

some say we want change from the top. they are waiting. the difference between us and ukraine, ukraine did not wait for change from the top. different national mentality. cognitive dissonance allows the hope that the country is not totals material. there -- t to go otal cemetery. >> do you want to jump in? >> i would like to follow up. we see with regards to sanctions that there is one time that he particularly dislikes. it is sanctions that name people

that dropped them from entering the western countries, in particular freezes assets. russian private holdings abroad are about one trillion. the estimate goes from $800 billion to $1.3 trillion. these are in the was companies -- in anonymous companies. you ask three questions. where do you have rule of law? where can you have anonymous companies? and where do you have sufficient financial debt so you can put large amounts of money? the money first goes from cyprus to russia and then from british virgin islands, then to cayman islands. the u.s. and the u.k. these are the two countries that meet these criteria. rule of law, anonymous companies allowed on a big scale and

significant financial debt. the reasonable guess is that 80% --russian it in wealth hidden wealth is in these countries. $300 billion is laundered into this country every year. it is a big estimate, but it is big. this is not only russia. $125 billion is another number. to say that we get $20 billion or so from russia coming into each of these two countries. then you wonder how much of this is being caught.

i would guess about zero because we do not know who owns these companies. they sell companies before they set up new shell companies. the money can be taken into real estate. real estate is excluded from the patriot act of 2001. the u.s. banking system is very clean, and the u.s. has cleaned out most of the banking systems in the world. thanks to the patriot act. one of the ways into the u.s. is through law firms because money

is covered by attorney client privilege. these are massive amounts of money coming in to the u.s. in this fashion. and in a similar way to britain. if mrs. may were serious about doing something after the salisbury poisoning, she should go after anonymous companies. david cameron organized a big international meeting against corruption in britain in may 2016. it turned out there were 29 essentially european countries who do not allow anonymous companies. david cameron made the claim that britain should prohibit anonymous companies. but, a month later, he said in

the brexit referendum that mrs. may have found new reason not to do anything about it, even now. >> i will give each of you a chance to make comments before we turn to the audience. >> a really dramatic story. a six-year story, five-year story. i am pretty sure there are so many traps that putin has raised for himself. he definitely cannot leave the kremlin, and we understand why. at the same time, the elite and the society are already tired of him.

the major talk of the day in russia is not reform, economy and who will succeed putin? this kind of agenda will shield -- pursue him into the end. this is still a major trap. two others already created under his guidance and leadership, understand that we need change. change cannot come from the top. the only way for change is from below. russia hates the idea of revolution. the other thing that is the key guarantee of the status quo is our fear and apprehension. russian transformation would mean preservation of russia in the current geographical state.

could we transform russia and preserve the state? this is an open question. the short comment on international aspect of this so-called election that took place yesterday. we are trying to see how many leaders of western democracies called putin to congratulate him. i mentioned earlier, going back to 2003, this was a parliamentary election. more than 15 years now, yet after they make those conclusions comes the leaders of those same countries rush to call mr. putin to presumably congratulate him.

quite appropriately this morning, the first bunch of foreign leaders called to congratulate him. all very big names. we were talking before our session began. we have been talking for about an hour. at the start of this event, the president of germany and chancellor of germany called to congratulate him. i am very puzzled as to how the -- that makes sense. she had many reasons not to congratulate him.

there should be many reasons. when western leaders do that, they are congratulating mr. putin on a successful set area -- theft. he congratulated not only mr. putin but the people of russia. this appears either as a mockery or an insult. >> over here. please identify yourself. [inaudible]

>> we can hear. >> maybe for the tv. >> how would you explain the fact that 94% of russian citizens born in european country voted for vladimir putin ? are you going to ignore it? are you going to use your influence in the west? or are you going to do something about it? what is your opinion on it? it is a fact. it is not propaganda. it is a fact. russian language schools are being eliminated as we speak. >> thank you.

we are not a party, we are a movement. we have people with different views within our ranks. people who are left, right, liberal, socialist. unfortunately, we are not yet at that stage in our country where we can afford to have those kinds of differences. we are about basic things like having a free election, which people have not had for a few decades. having a real parliament. these are real issues that we are working on. we do not have defined positions on many things, even domestically in russia, let alone international issues like the ones you are mentioning. people should be able to have a choice to educate their children in the language of their choice, that is my opinion. you are right to raise that

point. it has been astonishing to see. usually, if you take election results -- i am not talking about these manipulated results. even when we had a real election in russia, if you look at the results of elections and how russian citizens that resided in most european union countries -- and democratic nations, the vast majority would vote for the pro-democracy party. they were specially put together. they would win elections among russian citizens living abroad. one exception. the exception was the three baltic states. if you take election results among russian citizens that live and vote in the baltic states, they would have huge numbers not

just for putin but others. nationalists, communists. i do not live in the baltic states, so i do not presume to explain the reason for this. i think at least one of the factors is that for too long the baltic states have neglected to develop the national media outlets, certainly television channels in the russian language. by failing to do that, they have left the field open for kremlin propaganda that you can watch in the baltic state. this was the only russian language broadcasting available. for years, i would say to them, this is very shortsighted because unless you develop media normally, you are ceding the

ground to this propaganda. this has been happening for years. in recent years, i think i can certainly speak about latvia and estonia. i have been a guest on their channels.ublic they now have either entire channels -- it is a national broadcaster in latvia in the russian language. maybe that exists also in lithuania. i think of this as a very good sign that in recent years, the baltic states have begun to develop independent media in the russian language to combat the hateful messages spread in the propaganda. >> question to everybody else.

the question of ambassador hearst about putin's role. for many years since the soviet union acquired nuclear weapons it was never intended to be used, particularly after the collapse of the soviet union, the russian leadership saw it as an accessory. nuclear weapons would provide russia with the right to claim it was still a superpower. with the developments lately, we see intentional tensions with the west. now we are dealing with a new putin. he is not willing to become friends with west. he is willing to use nuclear

weapons if the worst comes to worst. do you think that is correct? >> very briefly, thank you for your question. apparently, we are going to discuss this very exciting topic. i do not believe that president putin has changed. yes, he is using this nuclear missile rhetoric, but at the same time, if we look at the developments and rhetoric of the kremlin during the last couple days, he tries to disclaim his narrative. the narrative was used definitely. now he wants to step back. he is addressing the west.

listen, you do not understand. now we have something important. now, we can bargain. i will say this missile rhetoric is an instrument to force the west to escalate in order to deescalate. despite a war -- maybe you will correct me. despite all this rhetoric, he is pretty cautious. the real nuclear people are pretty cautious about preemptive strikes, etc. the problem is that putin started to escalate too much without willingness for a bargain. he cannot de-escalate. so what will he do if there is no bargain? he, during the last couple of days, tried to calm down and

backtrack. maybe you know. >> i would agree with that. i do not think putin is suicidal. i think he wants to maintain a certain mutual deterrence. i think he sees russia's advantage as competing in the middle east, where he sees openings to take advantage of. i think he does believe some of his own propaganda about u.s. intentions, about the capacity of the u.s. strategic forces to mount a successful first strike. i think he has been sold a lot of bs. i think he does have this kind of paranoid nightmare scenario about a preemptive strike was

-- while he is asleep in sochi. as he may take steps based on his territory perception. this could be a reaction cycle. we have to do what we can, as difficult as it is to try and keep the agreement of alive, maybe try and solution to the problems. there is a be -- risk of miscalculation at the end of the day. i think the main area where we -- whereompete better he is eating our lunch. i think that this is a various -- very dangerous situation. you --is number two in

in nuclear power. it has the third biggest military expenditure after the u.s. and china. it is a declining power, world war i was caused by the main empire thatwer, the declared war on serbia inking that this is another ball -- thinking it is a another balkan war. war byd have a danger of accidents, where putin thinks it is not dangerous to fight. our late friend always said that five inspects article the nato statutes.

it is dangerous in the balkans, the former soviet republic and in the middle east where countries are not clearly refined. there accidents can happen. to complementant you on your dry sense of humor mentioning that real estate was withheld from the patriot act without mentioning who the vice chairman bank of cyprus was. i admire your restraint. my question is this. supposed putin has more leverage on us than we on him? suppose that he can exploit the american constitutional processes that enable intervention, and he continues to do that. as sandy pointed out, we have been derelict as reacting to his

measures. it is inconceivable he has gotten away with so much. he can get away with more. he does not have an idea of going to war with the u.s.. he does remember that in the west this mythology was created that ronald reagan spent the soviet union to oblivion by defense buildups. he did not. look at russian expenditures, which are modest. ours will be huge, $1.5 trillion over the next years. putin will be forcing us to spend more money than we can afford. he may also have leverage over donald trump. botsne the trolls and policing information that links smaller and his investigation closely to mr. trump. fired by mr.gan trump. there are also some weaknesses that mr. putin, as a former

intelligent agent understands. i just want your reaction to the thesis or hypothesis that mr. putin has more leverage on us than we on him. if that is the case, what do we do to change that ratio to our favor? everyone wants in on this question. about putinhe point could force us to spend our expense budget on the wrong thing, there is a risk of that. thehould not be taken in by wonder weapons speech of the first of march. focus on what it takes to balance if wee are focusing our energies on rebuilding our military so we can more capably deter in europe ,nd project power globally

rebuilding our fleet and air force, etc.. i think there is an inherent asymmetry in you have a system in russia with one decision-maker with a proclivity to take risks who can use asymmetrical means, using corruption as a tool can -- if we do not have another -- a better way to defend ourselves and have more western consensus on how to do that, he can exploit opportunities in an opportunistic way to our disadvantage. us, notlem i think is him. we have to assume he will be doing this. he is like the burglar that will push on every door in the hotel until he finds one that is unlocked. he will continue to do this until we find ways to edit -- educate our social media coat -- sosa me to get -- social media users and the platforms to not let them -- not be exploited as

successfully as they have. the spice ofver issues in our book -- in our domestic politics that are being exploited. that is a tall order given the polarized nation of american politics -- the polarized nation ization of american politics which are getting worse. lilia: i would agree. for food and it is the problem of the west. --ould say one thing -- four for putin it is the problem of the west. wooden would not have gone to puittin would not if you areo crimea

not sure. that theere not sure west germans and the americans would allow it. wasteof his rhetoric is on their perception of the west. perception wase in the russian political elite and within the kremlin, the west is weak in cynical. the west could be bought, frightened, controlled. this perception was based on putin's experience in dealing with western political leaders. perception became a role in 2000 15. this perception is one of the key lines of the out dated foreign-policy strategy. it says the people of west in america is over. and theg brought putin

kremlin to this conclusion. let me just add that i completely agree with you on your question. the onset -- the answer in product terms is transparency. broad- the answer in terms is transparency. we cannot allow -- >> on this point, what ever on thee that putin has west, the west has leverage on putin and his cronies that is not symmetrical. the criminal and sanctioned some of the u.s. senators who were in charge of passing it, senator said that it ruined his vacation plans in sochi. it is something that is not symmetrical. hundreds of billions that come

in here, do something about it. even though the u.s. was the first country to have this act, it was still implemented timidly. their other instruments, the fc fcpa and the crimea regulations. it is this coverage that is so effective. because so many people around putin use western countries as the place with which they link their future, that is the leverage you have and we hope you use it more than you are doing now. >> widely not take action? i will try to answer that question. the may challenge the premise of your first question. whatever the kremlin did in connection with our elections, it has not turned out well for them.

there is a certain amount of disorder in our political class because of that, and that is one success. on the other hand, they turned the more specific party, the democrats, into strong cold wars against the kremlin. they wanted to put the president, whatever his personal point of view may be, has pursued a policy towards the quiet -- kremlin as stronger and better than his predecessor. i believe that there is greater knowledge in our political class of the danger represented by the kremlin. that knowledge was evident in the security strategy which labeled russia as one of the two security dangers of the united states. the analysis which should've been evident years ago. having said that, in response to your question. that, in fact, our political class is much smarter

today on this question than they were two years ago. is that we have been working energetically in the the last four years. people understand problem better, which is translated into certain action. javelins tof ukraine, which was decided in december. i think things are moving in the right direction. the overall political landscape in the west is more complex, the election in italy which you referred to as a problem. the election in france are those of us advocating up policy -- a policy, great success. circumstances are not as nearly as dark as this discussion suggests. you can comeck -- back at me later, but not now. just a note on the baltic

state. one baltic state has 95%, another 93, and another 85. i am no expert to comment on that. i am still old enough to remember the times when lithuania voted 98% during the soviet times. the previous comments regarding the russian speaking television and media that is coming to lithuania. a short note that might white is of -- my wife is a pharmacist and all the sales that she does is in russian, to russian speakers. and isot a problem helpful that we can order in russian to a coffee -- a coffee or lunch. i question, back to the question regarding this discussion -- my

question regarding this discussion, the kremlin media sent the signal. today there were many comments in media about the results. what does it meand politicians. you could elaborate what these comments, what kind of message after the results were announced , what kind of messages are sent to the west by the kremlin? i will start. i -- having just watching it for the last two days, it seems to me that the talk show on the russian major channels, they have this inertia. anti-western, antalya u.k., anti-american. putin himself and the news are given another softer line. putin wants unity inside of the

country. opponents should join us in our mission to rebuild the country. no domesticr, revenge or retribution. on the outside world, they are going to cut military expenditures, putin says. he -- we are not going for an arms race, we what piece of negotiations. this is the first ally after the missile talk. he is just sending impulses whether he could find some kind journeynsus with maybe -- maybe germany or the united states. i am not sure what message he is sending to the u.k.. it looks like the russian propaganda you the u.k. as the weakling that could be just ignored. i've thought -- i thought

that the most notable statements by the head of rt says that putin will no longer be thatdent but leader, suggests that it is time to change the constitution. can do forever what putin said that he would not like to do. also said that he would not change the government on the question about the prime minister after he'd been inaugurated, which is in may. there is discussion where something will hang on.

the alternative is the minister of industry. i believe that you cannot beat week. be weak.nnot >> switching places again. >> two hands, we will get those questions. >> thank you. , thank you very much for everything you said, this is a terrific presentation. i wonder if, notwithstanding the fact that putin is around the foreseeable -- is around for the foreseeable future, speculation future, we aren

still underestimating him as a student of russian society. he is been consistent since the beginning, has constantly ratcheted up his control over russia. he has done it by surprising his opponents. ripalis why the sk poisoning is telling. he surprises that way. we're underestimating the value to him of corruption, not only as a tool by which he controls the ruling elites, and enriches himself, but the entire society. corruption courses but also culottes. because everybody is bought in. many people12 when wrote him off -- in 2012 when

everyone wrote him off, banking on the younger generation and young russians are just as nationalistic as the west -- as the rest of society. underestimating his ability to control society in that way, and appoint a chosen successor at some point. area: it seems to meet we underestimating the ability of this society to respond to putin . in regards to corruption, when putin had exhausted all previous tricks could start this struggle -- he started the struggle with corruption of his own regime. we have collection on all levels , all structures. presiding over anticorruption regime, this is a wonderful idea that could distract for some time.

withoutd of regime vision or mission cannot exist for a long time. he himself understands it. look at his face. he is hired. with thetired exception of one thing. he adores foreign policy. destruction that -- all of the rest became the destruction he does not like. >> you mentioned that putin surprises his opponents often. sometimes he was greatly surprised. that was among a hundred thousand people in dissemble of 2011 who came to protest against him. if someday told me in 2000 and -- in 2011 election that we would have 100,000 people standing across the river and the kremlin, i would not have believed it. they did not expected on the other side of -- they did not

expect it on the other side of that wall. do not underestimate the ability of russian society to throw a few surprises. let us not forget that russian is not all about putin and his regime. ,here are many people in russia we do not know how many. we know there are many people in russia who reject the regime. even if we forget everything else, corruption and abuses, people who are tired of seeing the same pace. this factor that lilia has spoken about, it affects society also. people that things are going to be like this. we need to look at the bigger picture, and whatever big changes happened, most of them happened by surprise.

let us not underestimate the possibility of surprises in russia, not just from the cap -- the kremlin but also russian society. continue in another direction. i completely agree that putin very --ed himself to be tactician.er all of these choices lead in one direction. the last reform of significance that he did was the pension 2005, he learned that i am not going to do any more reform, i will take the vote. 2012 the lesson that putin got from that was we must not open up too much.

he has not eased up. when you do that, you get the petrified citizen. in many ways, i had the same feeling when i go to moscow. at the internal excise, they are taking great than economics, they are certainly not politicians, because they realized that they are doing less work. it is a kind of therapy, they are writing reports whether -- doher, because you cannot that for a long time. with regard to corruption i looks upon it as a useful tool. program and

everybody said everybody knows how to manage because they always knew how to fix things. really suffer from corruption. we are seeing a similar situation in moscow and st. petersburg. it is different from -- on the markets. it is where the -- it is where it started, the big industrial cities on the edges. there people suffer from corruption. everywhere, iton is very disliked, about 70% dislike it. elite, i thinkle that is in decent to criticize the corruption -- you do not do that in that society.

below who havee to pay for it. and why do think that this can hold. it is for enrichment at the highest level. people in russia are literally billionaires when they were in the government. what we are seeing is the formation of a new feudal class. it is composed of putin's closest friends, the bulk of the private sector in the state sector. the vice president of the big state corporations, and there is a lot of people in the system who get very angry when they see that they are passed by. when the golden youth of putin go by. there are too few pieces to

benefit too much. russia with norman's in very few hands. anders: i agree that we should not underestimate putin by any means. he is been in power for 19 years, that shows his tactical dexterity. i agree with the point that he is ultimately bored by the mystic policy and wants to make his mark going forward primarily into external policy. i do not think we're going to see any serious reforms. i am skeptical that he will do a serious anticorruption. the whole system is built on corruption. it is part of his ability to control developments on the

periphery, which is based on having corrupt links that he can exploit. the foreign policy will be the played a wee has can very skillfully. i think the west is beginning to learn some lessons. after their experience of 2014. i am still skeptical that the west is united enough to ratchet up the pressure to change the calculus on some of the key issues that have caused a breakdown in relations with russia. i think this casillas tory speech or comments that lilia referred -- this conciliatory speech or comments that lilia tory -- that lily -- that lilia referred to the work. i think people the west need to be on russia's terms and do not need to compromise.

so, do not underestimate him. he is going to be a tough challenge going forward. , do not think things in russia despite the large protest last year which were impressive, and the fact that he has left people no alternative but protests as a way of expressing themselves. whether this will reach the boiling point, in -- whether this will reach the boiling point in the next you years i am not sure. we should not underestimate putin's ability to deliver just enough to diffuse discontent and disrupt the opposition to better organize itself. surpassed brashness and stalin in his longevity. >> oh my god, he cannot do it.

what idea does our current president have? >> steal as much and trying protect as much. >> the world isn't worth having without russia. >> that mind, there is no russia the mostutin is insulting say it you can say about our country. thank you all very much for your wonderful conversation and thank you all for coming. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> here's a look of our live coverage. the house and the senate could work at a 1.3 trillion dollar omnibus spending package that needs to pass to avert a government shutdown at the end of the week.

the houses in at 9:00 a.m. eastern, the house at 10:30 a.m. at c-span2. testifiesnegotiator on the steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by the u.s.. he is also expected to give an overview of u.s. trade policy in the trump administration. the senate finance committee starts at 10 a.m. eastern. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, supreme court and public policy of thence in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. coming up washington journal, louis gilmer on the funding bill dene