that creates some chaos for the daca recipients who came here and the age of six with nowhere else to go. there is a deal to take care of them and get the border wall we desperately need, plus interior enforcement to make us safer. that deal can be done, and i make a prediction on this show that there will be another effort to marry up order security and daca by the spring or early summer. >> and you feel it confident it will go through? >> i hope so, because if it we fail, it is a disaster for the and the wall.s i believe we owe it to the american people to try again, and i will try again. i think the president is open-minded to trying again. c-span, a on conversation with hillary clinton about her in.'s during the 2016 presidential race, and russia's ongoing attempts to influence u.s. elections. she will also talk about u.s.

leadership in the world and give her thoughts on the current political climate. that's from rutgers university at 9:30 on c-span. last month, russian president vladimir putin was reelected the vote.70% of next, foreign-policy experts and scholars on the applications of that election, including his relationship with europe and the u.s.. from the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies, this is just over an hour. >> good afternoon. of the russia-eurasia club as well as fdri, i would like to welcome you to an enlightening discussion. given the news, i'm confident that our panel will have no shortage of topics to talk about. we will be focusing, in particular, on russia's march 18 election and what it means for domestic and foreign policy over putin's next term, what we have dubbed putin 4.0.

following our discussion, we will move to a q&a session where you can pose your own question. let me introduce our panelists. i invite you all to join me in extending them a warm welcome. [applause] to introduce them, and they are actually sitting in the right order, even though i did not tell them how to arrange themselves. chris miller is an assistant professor of international history at the fletcher school of law and diplomacy at tufts. he is also the director of fdr'' s eurasia program. his research examines russian history and political economy. and he has written several books. he received his phd from yale. his ba from harvard. koba --is a lien upon palikova, the david m.

rubenstin fellow at brookings with the foreign policy programs center. she specializes in politics and far-right nationalism and russian foreign policy. her recent book examines the rise of far-right political parties in western and eastern europe. she has also written extensively on russian political warfare in the ukraine and in places such as the new street time -- new york times, wall street journal, and a number of academic journals and media outlets. she holds a doctorate and mastery -- masters in sociology from berkeley and a bachelors in economic and sociology from emory university. -- anxt guest is a assistant professor of political science at george washington university and an academic fellow at harvard. his research understands how elites translate political power into economic influence, and how policies can best be designed to curb corruption. projects underway look at

business people who run for elected office, the effectiveness of anticorruption campaigns, nepotism and government hiring, and the factors affecting the survival of autocratic regimes. his work has been published in the american political science review, the journal of politics, popular publications -- foreign affairs, washington post, newsweek, the moscow times, and elsewhere. he received his phd from the university of columbia and his ta from the university of virginia. in case you are wondering who i am, i am the copresident of the russian eurasian club. i am also the founder and editor in chief of a newsletter on russia's economy. before we get going, i want to acknowledge a more individuals and institutions. first, for helping organize the catering and logistics. speaking of catering, another thank you to the food trucks for the delicious meal we gestate. i would like to acknowledge maria, who was truly instrumental in publicizing this event and helping organize. lastly, the av team for helping

to set up for the event. my sincere thanks to all of you. with that said, let's turn to business. we will be starting with the election itself, then to its invocations for domestic and -- implications for domestic and foreign policy. i will offer a prompt where the panelists will have an opportunity to share their views and engage with each other. should the opportunity arise, i will ask follow-ups. so, the election. let's start with the campaigns and election results themselves, particularly the latter. according to russia's central election commission, and the caveat that there was some falsification, putin was declared to have won 77%, which turned out to be 67%. while the overall result was probably not a surprise to anybody, what about those numbers? based on them, what kind of mandate does putin have for his next term? would you call the results a success for the kremlin? >> i think there is no doubt the kremlin thinks it is a success. there have been -- they are happy with the results, broadly

speaking. they set the target for what they wanted the campaign to look like. it looks like what they wanted it to look like. they got voters out on election day, so for their perspective it is a success. as far as the political mandate, to some extent they are able to manage the political system to provide a narrative that they think suits their interests and the groups of you leads -- elites are more or less on board. things are under control, which is above all what they want. i think it is also worth noting that if you compare this election to the last presidential election, the last election, that was followed by , in moscow in particular. the middle-class came out into the streets and said we are not satisfied with the results, with the return of putin. this time we didn't get that much. the opposition was marginalized, the election was not a real election, but nevertheless, it seems like the population is willing to tolerate the government or not willing to complain too loudly about it. and one more interesting thing i

would note is that voting patterns in moscow look quite different. we can debate why that is, but more so than the previous elections, moscow voted in favor of the status quo. in the past moscow was seen as a change vote, it was like that in the last election. in this case, that wasn't true. why is that? i think that is a matter we will be debating and trying to analyze going forward, but from the kremlin's perspective, their number one fear was losing moscow, moscow having the middle class come out against it. that has not happened. what chris was saying, from an administrative point of view, these elections were a huge success for the kremlin. it clearly shows that the state is capable of organizing a nationwide, countrywide event with polling stations, all of the markings of a real election. and they did this effectively and planned everything down to the minute detail, including

bussing people to the polls when needed. from the kremlin's point of view, this is a huge success. elections in russia do not serve the same function they do in democratic countries. was preordained. there was no surprise about the outcome. there was no real competition, and that is another way why the elections were a success from the kremlin's point of view. they showed this time, unlike in 2012, when there were protests in favor of political opposition or anticorruption, this time there was a set of characters, you could say, who were pre-chosen by the kremlin to compete. so there was no real competition or real challenge. the only potential real challenger was prevented from running. as a result, these were the most managed, the most orchestrated, and the most efficient elections we have seen in modern russia.

from that point of view, they were quite successful. i did think it was interesting that it was widely reported the kremlinhat wanted a 70-70-70 results. 70% turnout, 70% for putin to mark his 70th birthday. but he only got 67% turnout. it is close enough, but somebody is in jail for that 3%. [laughter] probably not, but who knows. i think on the other hand, what was interesting to me about the question of the mandate is that we don't actually know what putin 4.0 will be about. and we have never known what putin 3.0 was going to be about. only now in hindsight, in retrospect have we been able to put certain labels. now we talk about that putin's last term from 2012 was defined by this new social contract

between the state and the people, the russian people, where even though there is economic stagnation and a curtailing of political rights, freedom of information, etc., russia has taken a more aggressive stance on the world stage. and russia has become great putin's prudent's -- last term. it is a social contract in foreign policy, greatness, coupled with domestic stagnation that has propped up putin's popularity. i do think the popularity is genuine, so we can discuss that as well. and we really don't know what the next six years will hold and whether this social contract that the kremlin established thus far will provide enough juice to sustain putin for the next six years. >> i think i agree with everything that was just said. i want to concur that this was a resounding success. a couple of things to keep in mind is that incumbent presidents face a tough time

getting reelected when the economy isn't doing well. voters don't like to support the status quo when they see acaughd sort of goes on and on. seems to be somewhat effective except for the fact that these are everywhere. revenue agents destroyed 122 illegal stills in 1877 alone and that does not count all the ones that are out there. moonshine violence against the its climax in the 1870's. over the course of that decade, 25 federal agents are killed by moonshiners. the continuity. you got the civil war that goes on. confederacy is fighting against the federal government, usa that ends in 1865. 1870'sllows through the

-- you got the same people killing the same people. white southerners killing representatives of the federal government. when domestic violence dies down is actually largely because of the democratic party. the republicans got defeated because they were trying to prosecute illegal moonshiners and because they were supporting black voting rights. democrats are the people who shut down liquor in north carolina in a copper hands of way by establishing dry counties and eventually prohibition. this is the democratic party's main idea. the thing that transforms moon shining and is relevant today, the ford model t. it gave southern bootleggers and

, they are called bootleggers because they hid their liquor in the boot, a.k.a. the trunk. they were also called rum runners and blockaders. anyone seen gone with the wind? anybody know what rhett butler did? he was a blockade runner. sort of rebellious qualities that are so attractive to midcentury moviegoers, he was a blockaders. so calling moonshiners blockaders was drawing on this confederate heritage and making an explicit connection to that. these men who were carrying corn liquor in model ts and quickly transform into a folk hero status in the mountain south, carrying whiskey out of these mountain hollows where it is made, to atlanta, asheville,

memphis, charlotte, north carolina, all destinations for bootleggers and when shiners. -- moon shiners. model t's are replaced by v-8's which seem to be tailor-made for this process. whiskey mechanics, that is what they were called. they would add extra carburetors to the engine, heavy tires. they would use up the suspension so that when going over mountain roads, the walls would not like. -- the bottles of moonshine would not break. the cars could go over 100 miles per hour once modified by moonshiners. by midcentury, the same people driving these cars were driven -- driving them in a different context. that is how the world of illegal whiskey making and nascar collided.

i am giving a couple of cultural examples. i cannot show you this movie because i do not have it ready. this guy, we can tell he is a bad man. he has a leather jacket, police are frisking him, i don't know. [laughter] >> he does not much look like a mountain southerner we imagine to be a moonshiner. this is robert mitchum, movie star from the 50's in a movie called "thunder road" a famous road in a north carolina which some people argue, would be the first road of nascar. moonshiners were being chased by revenue agents. i can't recommend this movie. i recommend hominy more highly. amy know what this is? the dude. big lebowski. jeff bridges. a movie made on the article by tom wolfe about junior johnson in "the last american hero."

i love the summary on imdb, "a young hell raiser quits the moon shining business to try to become the best nascar racer he the south has ever seen." it is the hell raiser part that we like about jeff bridges, if he was selling crack, we would not be so enthusiastic about jeff bridges. but he is selling moonshine and driving fast cars, and meeting pretty ladies. [laughter] as it is usually told, when the history of nascar is explained, the sport grew up out of informal races between liquor drivers in their souped-up cars. what you would do after you went to asheville, knoxville, north carolina, atlanta, and you delivered your alcohol, you would sit with other drivers and be like, who has the fastest car and they would race. that is the story.

tim block is an early nascar champion. i know exactly how racing got started. in the mid-1930's in a cow pasture, no safety equipment, just a bunch of bootleggers who had been arguing all week about who had the fastest car, and we would get together and prove it. so there is this spirit that i have been trying to talk about, that gets you channeled into a sport we eventually call nascar. 30 or 40 of these bootleggers showed up, made a track by running around and dig in their heels in the ground, betting on who had the fastest car. that night, they would be hauling liquor in the same car. that is according to early drivers on what the beginning of nascar actually was. there was no actual cow pasture. [laughter]

it's funny that you have this guy from the beginning of nascar talking about this and it did not really exist. but bootleggers did race each other. it was mostly unpaved roads like thunder road in north carolina. during the average race in north carolina and georgia during nascar's ascendance at least one third of the drivers had run or were currently running illegal white liquor. that is the core group of people who were driving, creating, cultivating the image of nascar were all participating in the illegal production of corn liquor. --least twice that number two thirds of the mechanics worked on nascar automobiles during this time had worked on stooping up moonshine cars to escape from the police. another early driver, a guy named meta-gerrit recalled at least half the people i raised at hickory and north works --

northwoods borough were involved in bootlegging. for at least 60 years, academics who were interested in this who were not very many, and also nascar itself basically said this was not true. that this was mythology. there was no bootlegging or moon shining involved in this process. i like this quote by another nascar historian. a lot more to stock car racing than rednecks driving in circles. what they try to do is disavow these illegal or anti-governmental roots by talking about nascar -- this is the way nascar talked about itself, by saying that they were not backwards hillbillies. that this was a sophisticated world of people driving cars very quickly. work mostlyrical done by this guy daniel pierce has confirmed a large number of the myths.

at least about the number of drivers who were involved in moonshine, not that they were driving around some mythological field in the backwoods of atlanta, but that these people who created nascar moonshiners who have fast cars and wanted to find out who had the fastest. one historian of nascar explained the deeper i looked into southern stock-car racing more liquor i found. early drivers would haul liquor from dawsonville, georgia to atlanta at night and raced at the lakewood speedway the next morning. so there's a sort of complete overlap of these worlds as nascar is being created in the 30's, 40's, and 50's. significant numbers of early drivers especially the most successful once had their initial high-speed experience debating the law at the wheel of a souped-up the eight loaded with 128 gallons of illegal corn whiskey. .hat's pretty clear

historians discovered that the entire apparatus of early nascar was saturated in corn liquor. early mechanics, car promoters track owners, all had material investments in moonshine. it would not be an exaggeration to say that the sport itself was built on the proceeds of the manufacture, transport and sale of hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases of white liquor. it's crazy to think that this sport just grew directly out of moon shining. junior johnson, who you are reading about, one of nascar's first and most famous champions, really drew a direct line in his commentary about early experience in nascar. how tied it was to his personal experience delivering moonshine.

it gave me so much advantage over other people that had to train and learn how to drive, johnson said. when i sat down in that seat, it was a backseat to what i'd re: been through. i had done these spinning deals sideways. it made my job so much easier than anybody i've seen come along and go into it. never ever did i see a guy who did take a car any deeper than i could and save it as long as i raced. all because he had driven so fast getting away from the police with whiskey in his car. and nascar fans and racers developed this identity, basically based around the same set of circumstances. white, working-class, if not poor white men, whose culture valued some key things that are all tied to stuff we've been talking about here as far back as the whiskey rebellion. freedom, action, and even violence.

all of these things are combined in nascar in this wonderful way. for many people in the inland south involvement in the legal white liquor business allowed them to retain family farms. it was the thing that kept them above starving. cap them out of the mills, kept them out of the northern way of , alsos it was perceived gave them an adrenaline rush and this cultural belief that they were doing their part to resist the federal government. that is really the part of nascar that i think is most important to think about as we move into the modern era. shining givesn people an outlet to express their independence from and this taste for the government. and for authority. racing, they found a pastime into passion that helped them express their traditional cultural values in a

modern world. they had a sport developed by and for white working-class men. that's what they wanted. that is what the white democrats wanted, what x confederates wanted after the war. anybody know why we like these images? for those of you not from the south or new orleans and the goat audubon park are they like, so beautiful, so amazing. i feel that way. a magical mystical place. we have these images of the south. something developed by southern writers after the war of what's called the moonlight and magnolia school. the little building in the background, the plantation house. there becomes this soft image of the antebellum world where everything was good for everybody and people indulging in this are not emancipated slaves, it's white people who are remembering what it was like

to be permanently above somebody , no matter who you were, if you were white, there was a black underclass below you that could never move. it's not surprising why a bitterly defeated people comes up with the moonlight and magnolia school. but this is going to color how people see nascar. one historian writing about the south put it this way. to distinguish themselves from the manner of elitist north, rural southerners took pride in an earthy homespun worldview. men became masters of cars machinery and firearms. ofs is a quote, all which can be operated stone drunk. i'm not sure that is a good idea. gun telling and whiskey drinking became the proud traits of southern men and thus southern antiauthoritarian roots that have this deep historical context gets transformed by moonshine and by nascar into self identifying this.

-- self identifying as this. i love this shirt. it makes me so happy. beer chugging, tailgating, gear grinding, all the things in this i can't take it seriously. make my head want to explode. fans flying confederate battle flags at nascar is just this amazing historical kaleidoscope. everything is colliding their from the whiskey rebellion's to the war, to imagery and stereotypes of southerners that southerners are then indulging in and saying yeah. thumbing their nose at the rest of the world. . like this guy neil thompson i say like in an ironic way i guess, who captured even what yankees found romantic about this. a guy who's written about nascar. i felt disconnected and left my

job at the baltimore sun and moved south to nascar country to surround ourselves with the history, the culture, the people of nascar. we now live on miles of thunder road. one of my sons teachers supplied moonshine e-book from an dude named one on ronnie. my search for corn whiskey's history, its role in treating nascar, has taken me to the homes of aging bootleggers as a hollowse the -- the jagged hollows of northeast alabama, western north carolina and georgia. he is given a book called "our southern highlanders," written by this st. louis librarian in the 19th century who had a very areas -- a very serious taste for moonshine. the library and eventually abandons his family and moves to western north carolina. this is what this guy writes about reading this book. i have settled in a charming way on my neighbor's attitude and their taste for adventure, their

pickup trucks, there on clenched national unclenched thirst for whiskey, and the sport he -- the sport they created. this romance we see here is somehow translated into a romance for these guys. , actuallapping people human beings who are participating in both is pretty striking. something really romantic about these people to a wide number of people north and south. the sport they created during the 30's, 40's, and 50's is a multibillion dollar industry are yet it goes from being a lawbreakers pastime to a working man's domain into an obsession for 80 million fans as of today. the second most popular sport in america. that is insane.

i'm not saying anything bad about nascar. it is just pretty wild. much like the mainstreaming of white supremacy that takes place , or the mystique of the moonshine, nascar itself translated itself from being a backwoods hillbilly pastime into being a legitimate sport. this is neatly illustrated by the sports main corporate sponsors. nascar's first sponsor, good old southern born tobacconist r.j. reynolds, introduced to the sport in 1972 by convicted moonshiner, replaced by the communications giant nextel. from r.j. reynolds, when they got corporate legitimacy, to nextel. getting further and further away from this idea. when authenticity becomes marketable, nascar starts to think about this. in our current promotional literature, the first time they ever did this in 70 years. there's no way around it,

nascar's roots are soaked to the tip in moonshine. they don't have to be ashamed of , even though we have people like this around the track. racers, the owners -- the owner of nascar himself, very deeply soaked in the world of moonshine. bill francis, whose family still owns nascar, this is the most valuable sports family in the world but they don't feature in the same way. i watch mark cuban being interviewed. why is this guy have such an enormous profile but this family is enormously wealthy because of nascar. they originally raced for, barb money from and sought guidance -- borrowedners money from and sought guidance from moonshiners. what nascar ran into in the early 2000's was this very hard

and difficult negotiating space. and note keep our fans allow the flying of the confederate flag. became very controversial. nascar president mike helton said, the old southeastern redneck heritage that we have is no longer in existence. this actually got probably three times, four times as many confederate flags flying in nascar races after he said that. in the aftermath, he had to walk back his remarks and say, nascar is proud of where we came from. anybody here from atlanta? nobody? man. that's why you don't know what common he is. until 1965, nascar was atlanta. it was not until 1965 that the atlanta braves come. daca come in 1966. nascar is essentially your sport in the south. your core troll entertainment -t

in the 1960 -- up until the 1960's in places as big as atlanta. so we need to think about that when we think about who junior johnson is, why tom wolfe wrote this article about him. would anyone have any questions? if anyone has any questions, i am happy to take some now. you guys are just settled. have to wait for that microphone. >> where does nascar gets its name from? >> you're making me look stupid now. the national association of -- what is it? stock car auto racing. that is how it gets its name. anybody else? you are now going to be famous. that was your 15 minutes, five seconds of fame. >> when was it that you said republicans and democrats

switched? >> that takes place in the 20th century around the 1930's. -- around the 1920's. it started to change as soon as jim crow was becoming popular. switchties literally affiliations. their voters would just trade parties by the 1930's. good times. i will see you guys on friday. >> interested in american history tv? visit our website c-span.org /history. view our schedule, preview upcoming programs and watch college lectures, museum tours, archive old films and more great american history tv at c-span.org/history.

>> tonight on afterwards, south carolina republicans senator tim scott and congressman trey gowdy discuss their friendship and time in congress. interviewed by former south carolina senator jim demint. >> one of the things i enjoyed about having dinner with trey, rarely is the occasion that someone does not stop who's not from here. this is a fun experience. also meaningful and significant. to take a look into his cranial cavity about the perspective he takes on really important issues. you'll find very quickly that while he may be rented a partisan at times, the truth of the matter is, his primary objective is truth. if it works for you, good, if it works against you, he's sorry but he's going to find the truth. that is hard in a city that wants to win i think is more

important in the city than finding the truth. >> i'm think of to have built a friendship with someone who's more interested in the truth than winning. >> something really not couple mentoring was written about senator scott in a blog. it was libelous. i reached the end. we are not going to put up with this anymore and i marched to his office in longworth. went past the scheduler and said i'm going in to see him and i said we're going to do something about this. you cannot allow people to say this and do nothing about it. he said, you are right, close the door. i thought we're going to hatch a plan. he said we're going to pray for it. i said, tim, i love you, but i'm not praying for it. he said will you sit here with me while i do. he sat there and prayed for a credit, by name. there are not many people that do that.

>> monday morning, we are a lot in boise, idaho for the next stop on the c-span bus 50 capitals tour. idaho governor butch otter will be our guest during washington journal beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern. tv,ext, on american history jim gray, rancher and cowboy historian, talks about the development of cattle driving and ranching in the 19th century. mr. gray discusses the impact of the railroad and other historic events that shape the industry and by extension, the west. the kansas city public library hosted this event. it is one hour. >> welcome everyone. in.name is jeremy drew

missouri valley special collections and history department of the kansas city public library. our archives are headquartered across the hall from this auditorium. in the missouri -- he will find books, articles and photographs documenting town history. the history that begins in the 1870's with the emergence and growth of the kansas city stockyards. of heads of cattle were receive daily before eventually being sent by rail to eastern markets. before the cattle reached kansas city they had to be driven in large herds from ranches in texas to railroad towns in kansas. cowboys,drovers or herded thousands of cattle hundreds of miles while under threat from dangerous and often unprintable whether, stampedes

-- unpredictable weather, stampedes, sickness as well as the occasional rifle toting landowner. here to talk about cattle driving and life on the trail, the cowboy, jim gray. you don't earn the name the cowboy if you have not spent considerable time trail riding. is a fourth-generation rancher and sixth generation .ansan jim's on the ranching tradition to this day. when not raising cattle he is preserving and promoting the cowboy heritage as executive director of the national drovers hall of fame in kansas. he is cofounder the cowboy society, cowboy being an acronym for the cockeyed old west band of yahoos. in addition, gray served on the

board of directors for the trail association. in 2017 he helped organize a bid celebrating the 150 year anniversary of the chisholm trail. he is author of the book desperate needs, ellsworth kansas on the violent first year . his presentation today is titled had him up and move them out -- had them up and move them out. please welcome, the trail boss, the cowboy, jim gray. [applause] >> thank you. cockeyed old west band of yahoos. that's the way my mind works. years ago iran a cowboy shop in ellsworth. go.le would come and this fellow came in.

i could tell by the way he carried himself that he was an old cowboy. probably in his 80's. tall slender guy. ranching intarted western kansas in the 1880's and my family had done the same in central kansas so we had something in common. i suppose we spent a couple hours telling stories. as he wasleave and going through the door he hesitated and turned and looked back and he said i did not think anybody cared about this stuff anymore. and then he walked out. in that whole time i did not even get his name. it struck me that the stories are dying everyday. at that time, i was younger fellow. i'm getting to that age where a lot of stories i've got i think about two, if i don't tell them they're going to die with me. so we started the cockeyed old

west band of yahoos, basically as a group to preserve these cowboy stories. back out into the trail driving history and the history was something i was attracted to because my great-grandfather had been involved in buying texas cattle and his son and uncle of mine had been on the trail. we have a picture of him dressed in his cowboy gear. he actually, from the stress of the trail, probably in and out of close quarters in saloons. interference, for various cyberattacks, as more and more information is coming out it is becoming more and more clear there should be serious consequences. that, it could be more , hybrid warcy

style, asymmetric measures against other current -- belarus, central asia , we can think about that there. you will lead to even a lower state of relationship than we are in now. i think the most likely one is the status quo. putin has taken on quite a few part -- foreign policy risks. some have not played out so well. at this point, it seems there will be a holding pattern to see what comes next. maybe there will be a summit in the white house are and that is how we will see that signaling or not. i think that is a comp has about one of the direction it

will take. i think that is exactly how we should be thinking about the next couple of years of foreign policy. if the last four years have been dominated, i do not think the next few will be as much. solving problems, think foreign policy will be used less and less to drive public opinion that it has been in 2014. there will be a refocus on the mess -- on the environment. for their own foreign policy and what they tried to achieve the wrought, i think reprioritizing will be an important shift. i would put my money on not staying in the government. we do not know how much authority he has to dictate, but he has been a really effective spokesperson for this very

to the westproach and if someone else is western oriented and spends more time and has those relationships, that would be a strong signal that rings are about to change. more: -- collaborating on many areas where there is a lot of room for improvement and progress in mutual interest to solve problems. just cast that aside that everything comes down from putin. we were talking about governors new faces with more technocratic approaches with -- that are more open and if they win in the next couple of months, i would be surprised if they didn't -- i think that is a good way to look at it. a positive outcome will not mean russian capitulation but it might mean a slight shift work

-- worth taking advantage of. >> final question before we move to a queue and day. i would like to invite all three of you to be vladimir putin for the next six year and tell me how you would like to end your term and what you would like to accomplish by the end of the next six years. we had vladimir 1.0 which was stability and growth. we had vladimir make russia a great again. >> you want me to respond? >> i'll do it.

>> make sure the point does not boil over. just making sure that whatever infighting and whatever will happen in the next four years will go out will not be plagued by leaks that the popular perception is that the russian government is divided. if you don't know who to talk to in the russian government that who is actually pulling the levers. i would close the informational sphere -- as much as possible. in no way can transparency help in terms of choosing a successor. combine that with crisis management, trying to prevent

painful points from really hurting you, i also think that you should take a step back from the aggressive constitution, not because -- i think he has a lot to gain for a. of or a slight reset with the west. turn this off rep into a sunny however he wants to spend his retirement will be facilitated by a big plan bargain before she leaves where we cannot only try but russia had finally achieved other objectives and is taken seriously by the west and treated more like an equal. you may have to make in fact -- concessions with the west. then exit to try to put the country not so confrontational. >> so, back to the election for

a second. another reason why it sees what it will come, in western countries and just reporting on russian meddling and interference in democracies, but we forget that all these techniques were first and foremost were tried in russia domestically. with the election showed to me is a deliberate process to develop the kremlin's grasp of information control. it was very well orchestrated. those clear messaging on all levels, professional russian media, local media and social media and russian government statements, it showed that capacity of the states to control information. i agree that domestically is defined to find out has already started and now they have a mandate to really close it down in the same way they closed down their society and independent

media. i think the message is if i was sitting in the kremlin i would be able -- i would feel terrified. i know that russia is isolated. there are people coming into the administration and you have to be very careful with trump. the form policy front we haven't seen putin say anything about donald trump the same thing he said about obama. the last comments we saw about the potential summit at the white house. there is a discussion going on in the west about russia's dirty money. putin in many ways has to be a very good manager of all the competing interests within the kremlin. as long as he is able to provide the cover for them to secure the assets, they are not going to be vulnerable to their assets being frozen in their lives and chateau's and other property katie -- being taken away from them, he has a good source of power. the has to secure the power for the elite. if that was to crumble internally, it would be problems for him. he has a much more tenuous situation that it may seem for

us. there is an unbreakable mile as of power and it is not. i would be a little anxious and scared and how will i try to compensate for that anxiety and frustration? i think maybe on the one hand putin could be a great leader, but trying to control information step-by-step could be problematic. there is no way he is leaving in 2024. the foreign minister is is a spokesperson and my view and has no independent autonomy to make any decisions. i think in 2024 maybe he won't

be president, he will be prime minister again, all things of -- all kinds of things you could do. i would be more concerned about my family and my assets and my personal relationships to remain secure because nobody will provide a problem for putin. >> i think there is risk if russia moves towards the more chinese style regime. the political beliefs in a system where everybody supports the government, you get flexibility in government, they

feel like they can live a western lifestyle in russia. when they are restricting google to a certain extent, like telegram services they would like to ban that. >> at this point i would like to move to q&a session and having been to many of these type of events and easy , underlined the q in q&a. keep it to 32nd -- 30 seconds at the most.

then we will let you all -- who like to ask a question?

>> i am just told her retired military. all of you talked about the account of putting yourself back into putin's shoes three years down the road, the economy is still stagnant. what to see have to do in the foreign policy side? is that the counterbalance between the stagnant economy and his popularity? will we see that bring back at 1.0? >> in my view, one of the best achievements has been economic

roles. those used to be seen as interlinked. as the economy starts to decline, putin will lose popularity. if you look at putin's approval ratings before crime area -- crimea, they were less than the 50's. he was not the unbreakable peoples star, to say. if you look at some of the other form policy like syria, we did not see this response. how much further can you really go? going forward, the kremlin will have to figure out whether foreign policy can't continue to

sustain the popularity or if they need to focus on the domestic issues, this is a tightly -- a found themselves in. one way they try to balance this is the immobilization, that's a dangerous force. they were underestimated many times. they should bounce set out constantly and bring it under control and very his ways is quite tricky. to be successful at it so far because of the control of information space but it is

unclear whether they will be about to continue to walk this line. in terms of economic reform it is weird to everybody -- it is clear to everybody on the panel, i don't see how russia becomes a sustainable -- sustainable economy that will continue to rise over the generations. there is no source besides hydrocarbon exports. those kinds of reforms are going to hurt.

do i see incentive for putin to get people around him to do these kinds of painful changes? i don't have that would help him and his popularity. that's a risk that he has to be willing to take. has he taken up the plan? no. >> any thoughts and potential square economic reform? >> if we are to see reform it will be on two levels. one is the recent level and the challenge will be that he will have to push to the right types of from the center. it's not clear to me that the center -- you are not going to make russia great again by performances at the regional

level. if they want to maximize their popularity, and the second type of reform, painful reforms that will help the budget balanced and raising the pension age, depending on your projections might be necessary but it will not help economic growth. they have a couple of reforms like the pension age over time to the budget balance doesn't increase economic growth. if you do have tougher forms you might get more economic growth. >> the incentive structure that putin has insisted on. to not for the russian economy, incentivized to set up a system where they can get as much money as possible. putin is a plutocracy. in a normal country, you would think there would be political concern about economy but russia is not set up with a structure.

>> next question? >> i'm from the state department. i have been curious about why there is no ways to talk about -- there's been little evidence that they have impacted public opinion? >> information does not reach the populace, i think people did not know who alexei navaly was. can you estimate how many people have been killed in syria russian mark --? i would say less than five or 10%, generous range of those two. we go back to the idea -- the

most vulnerable is when the public is less informed. with the have been implementing over the last 18 years, information comes in and people believe it. people can receive. information about they cannot write it. -- incorporate it. it is a more orchestrated effort that needs to be done so people know leasing's candy done. they -- can the done. maybe this is an untenable position to hold. they can't capitalize on these

weakness, the invectives don't align. the government controls what the people can understand. >> with the relationship to that and some of these foreign policy events it is over 25% -- the kremlin has returned -- retain that high-level. over the fall of 2015, 3% jobs, from three to 86. the russian media frame that has thank you to the u.k. for giving us that boosted turnout, and the boost because it shows the west is out to get russia. it was framed so that the kremlin began a narrative before

the election. again, he is right -- >> there will be a brief pro forma session. -- >> hi, if there is a set of ideas or priorities that have a critical mass of support that could give some sort of clue as to what direction the country heads after putin, and also ideas and policy that matter to the regime? >> we know there are different groups. some based on additional networks and other based on ideas and politics. what sorts of economic policies, there are clear lines. if you were to imagine putting together a coalition to get your

youchosen as a successor, would probably want to have both sides of the spectrum on the economic question for example. foreign policy is harder to know because of decision-making processes. you don't get real debate spirit economic questions, we actually get debates that are interesting to watch. certainly, if you were trying to convince putin to pick a person as a successor, you want to convince him your prison can balance just as well as he could. himself will want to change direction, we don't know that. it turns of governance, i think that is a lot. thethat you can change attitude toward everything, but you talk about the regional, interact with government and talk about managing companies, there are ideas about governance that could play a good role and push through.

i think these are medium to long-term questions. when certain ones are chosen and certain ones are discarded, and tracking that overtime is important. >> the head seems to be quite effective at consolidating financial resources and power in russia today. wonder, if sometime on the sixth time, present a real challenge to putin. so far, he has been a loyalist through and through. there are moments where he seems to have stepped out of line and little bit. things like this to keep an eye on. toe in the oligarchs circle see if they may be someone

through a coup or management position, replace putin incapacity -- in some capacity. we really's -- we really should see how that developsincapacity- overtime. it is like we are back in cold war years in terms of taking out guesses about kremlin's and who i think it isur quite speculative. from friends and colleagues in russia, it is all opaque. mind ishing to keep in if you took a time machine back to 2000, very few people would bet money that the putin regime with the empowering 2018 still. i cannot to you how many pieces i've read in 2008 that this was the year the regime would collapse and fall apart at the seams. months ofe had six

putin left. this has been a surprisingly successful government here at what you will follow putin is going to have to commit to the continuation of that regime. for all of the corruption and mismanagement, it has worked, longer than most authoritarian regimes that have to submit themselves to popular elections every couple of years. this is not an outlier yet. this is still something that is part -- impressive from a political science standpoint. that leads us to who will be the most committed in securing and protecting those who built it and ensuring the next generation is committed to how the regime works from the inside but also has a vision of russia and its place in the world that rat -- maps off to the last decades that have been essential to keeping the regime -- they have

weathered a lot. a lot of regimes would have collapsed under the weight of the pressures. look forhy when they the next person, they have to believe in the system and what was done in 2000 was in some ways correct and the right course of action. get a change candidate in 2024 and 2023. there is too much to lose. >> my permission for russia's's long-term future. the i don't think it is going anywhere. >> on that optimistic note, thanks again for joining our panelists. thanks to all of you for coming out. have a good one.

[indistinct conversations] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] >> with reports of an alleged chemical attack in syria this weekend, there were talks on some shows about what talks should be and what role russia and other countries are playing in the region. first, we hear from steven mnuchin, who was asked to comment on the president's reaction to the news. >> president trump tweeted this morning, many dead including women and children in mindless chemical attack in syria. the area of atrocity is encircled by the syrian army --