tv Michael Mc Faul From Cold War to Hot Peace CSPAN June 30, 2018 1:03pm-2:41pm EDT
going to get rolling as people find seats, last few folks. i want to welcome you on behalf of the institute for international studies here at stanford. my name is katherine and i'm the other political scientist here at stanford who also works on russia. actually there's more than just two of us. there's many of us and i am sometime the coauthor of some of mike's books and articles although he does pretty well without me. he's rather productive without my help and i'm also senior fellow and deputy director for international studies where our speaker this evening ambassador and professor michael mcfaul serves as director. my pleasure and sincere honor to introduce michael to you this evening although at stanford in particular mike is the man who needs very little introduction. just in case you don't know mic or his work, i will give you a
brief intor. mike has long and distinguished history at stanford where he came undergraduate in actum 1981. if you get a few beers in him he was housed. it was stanford where he met wife dona and to whom he was married a little more than 10 years, mike was ba double major in international relations, he cotermed in russian and eastern european studies, he got ma here and graduated in 1986. first trip to russia as he tells you in his highly-acclaimed new book in long anticipated especially those who work with him was in 1983 as sophomore here at stanford. a photo of him holding up a poster that says russia or bust in the middle of this book as he headed off to soviet union for the first time is alone.
let me assure you, worth the price of a book. [laughter] >> mike went onto oxford after stanford to receive in international relations and wrote and liberation movements in southern africa and in particular the intervention of the soviet union in southern african context. but even a disertation and it's where i first met him hat moscow state university where we talked, debated democracy with our host there and eventually mike became activists helping to support ngo's, national democratic institute and opened the carnegie endowment moscow office in supporting russia's democratic and mike came back to stanford as assistant professor
of political science and hoover institution where he is now the peter and hellen senior fellow and finally to institute where he has served as director of the center on democracy development in the rule of law and the deputy director of the institute, again, i now hold, i feel trajectory is quite good. since 2015 he has been director of the institute. mike's first trip to soviet union as sophomore would be the first of hundreds of visits to the soviet union and russia cull -- culminating as president obama's ambassador which he held till march of 2014. as he's careful to note and i can feel presence here, he got out before crimea was taken by putin so that didn't happen on his watch. [laughter] >> prior to that mike served as
close adviser to obama during his campaign flying with him on 0 force one and eventually allow today flight on air force one as president and senior director for russia and euroasia, all experiences recounted in highly anticipated and now we can safely say book and american ambassador in putin's russia but mike is rare ambassador who is also academic, as the book explains and spent his lifetime as both activist and researcher, before he went to government he was undoubtedly the best political scientist writing on russia in a generation perhaps rivaled only by prior generations, great scholar and
policy-maker george cannon who also, of course, served as u.s. ambassador to soviet union. mcfaul is rare academic who has also successfully bridged this often too wide gap between policy and academia. i will close by noting that it's testament to mike's ability as diplomat that he has managed to get no fewer than four secretaries of state, two democrats, two republicans, three women, one man to provide enthusiastic blurbs about his book in back cover. none of the books have singled secretary of state but maybe the next one. so it's my pleasure to introduce my friend and my colleague and our former ambassador to russia from the united states, michael mcfaul and i urge you buy his fascinating book at the end of the talk this evening. [applause]
>> after that introduction we should go to questions. thank you all for coming. i know i'm competing the warriors. first game to have series, so i know that you really want to talk about russia and i actually be watching the warriors right now. but i'm thrilled you are here. this book means a lot to me, it's a tragedy as i will tell you in a few minutes. a tragedy about u.s.-russian relations, a russia about obama's attempt to reset relations with russia. i actually just got a chance to present the book to him last week so we went over our stories because he's writing his own books, thankfully our stories overlap. i was a little nervous about that that he might have different memory and it's own life, starting as kid and having ideas about russia and ending in
places that i didn't want to do it. so what i am going to do night and this is the first time i ever tried to do that and it may fail and i will get it right by the time i get to harvard on wednesday. i'm going to try to leave the personal and the analytic, i'm going to lean on analytic because this is stanford after all. i want to bounce back and forth especially to bring stanford into the story because we are at stanford today. as katherine said, i came to stanford, 17-year-old kid, i first got my intro in montana. i want to give montana. red state, flyover state. but junior year of high school, i joined the debate team, actually joined the debate to get easy a, by the way, back then and the debate topic that year was u.s.-russian, how to
improve u.s. trade policy and my debate partner and i we ran what's called the squarely case, if there's any debaters out there, you're nodding, obscured, strange, nobody that is any data on and we ran a case saying we should repeal the jackson bannick trade amendment so 1974 trade act to increase trade to soviet union, it wasn't at stanford actually that i started my interest in the soviet union. it was inmont -- in montana but in freshman year i registered and stanford really did change my life. first year russian, anybody have polysy35 before? anybody else? it's called something else. polisiy3 or something. the classes i took because i was squared of the cold war, there's
no gray hair in the room but there's enough young people to remind you it was a scary time and i had a theory that if we could just engage with the russians, we called them the soviets then and get to know each other, we could reduce tensions in u.s.-russia relations that was my initial theory, played with it for a while and sophomore year, there it is, there's the photo, wasn't sure i should include that in the book. my publishers wanted to, there i am, sophomore year, i hear my son, thanks for coming cole, that's what i looked like, my hair was a lot longer back then and imagine so my sophomore year summer, most people go to florence, paris, london, campuses there. that's most certainly you girlfriends went. she went to moscow '85. tells you who is the smart one in family.
i was going because i had never been abroad before. never been abroad. imagine that phone call to my mother in montana who, by the way, thought california was a communist state. [laughter] >> a bunch of hippies and i'm going to come back some communist and sure enough i came back with long hair and i wanted to go to evil empire. that's what ronald reagan called the soviet union back in 1983 and there i am at the airport on my way, took a long ways to get there. so that's why i went, that's why i got interested and so for me the end of the cold war was a glorious moment and i want to emphasize that. this was good news. i am not part of this revision of history that somehow this was a bad deal for america and russians, notice i say russians plural. gorvesha were partners in ending
cold war, they wanted a world where we would be closer together, several thousands and jordans, if you look hard you can see the flags in this meeting too. and so i want to remind you of that period because it's easy to forget, well, certainly putin wants you to forget about it. he wants you to think that we have always been in confrontational relationship but that's definitely not the way it was in late 80's and early 90's. and so to remind you of that and the horrible moment today in terms of confrontation with russia. two years ago the then prime minister said we are just like it's the cold war and notice he invokes 1962, just a couple of weeks ago, of course, on twitter our president said it's even worse than the cold war, our current moment today. now, we could have debate about
if it's worse or better and if it's hot piece -- cold war versus hot piece and i'm happy to do that in questions and i use this phrase hot piece deliberately to echo the past because some of the things are similar. history doesn't repeat itself but it rimes. i think that's true here. some of the aspects to have hot piece are worse, more dangerous, more frightening even then periods of the cold war. we used to have a big quantitative arms race now we have a qualitative which is more scary in some ways than the late era of the soviet era in cold war. yeah, it's great, we don't have communist versus capitalism but putin is fighting an ideological struggle against the west, the liberal west, that's the way he describes it, better, worse, i don't know and some things that we thought were over that we've
gotten rid of annexation for most of decades of cold war annexation wasn't part of struggle back and forth. now it's back and on our side never in the history of the cold war has so many people been on a sanction's list, the chief of staff with the kremlin was never on the sanction's list during the cold war and it's gotten so bad that i'm on the sanction's list. i know longer can travel to russia. i'm in good company, george cannon was the last former ambassador to be put on the list and i saw his daughter two days ago in dc, she's got a new book coming out herself and she said welcome to the club, mike, i was on the list for a long time, keep the faith, you might get off later. i think we all agree that this is a confrontational moment in u.s.-russia relations and for me i want to add the adjective tragic confrontation and what i want to do is i want to explain
this photo, this photo. these photos actually. what happened? [laughter] >> what happened? how did we go from that moment to this moment? by the way, i was at that meeting, that's in lose -- los cabos, méxico, the meeting was much worse than that photo. all right, for the next 15, 20 minutes i want to explain that, what happened, and i want to take your questions and when we get the questions, i want to be clear, i'm talking but i want to make sure we can talk about anything, we talk about all of the other chapters in the book, some of the lighter chapters, i've heard that some of you read the book, wow, that's great, please recommend to wives, cousins, father's day is coming, don't forget. so we can talk about the two
steps, we can talk about obama's jump shot, it's not as good as he thinks it is. i want to keep with the kind of more conceptual piece as i worked through these explanation of this. what the hell happened? how did we go from this? all right. i'm going oversimplify but there are three arguments out there, theories if you will, explanations and i want to walk you through all of them, my book for those of you who worked in the pentagon, you know what that is, bottom line up front is at third explanation. all right, first one, structure of the international system. this is polysi35 and this is an argument that focuses on power. power between the states, balance of power in the international system and what you see here is just some history racing through, what's
going on here, countries are getting more powerful, other countries are getting weaker and as a result there's confrontation and at times borders change, right? it's going to take a long time before crimea gets to russia, by the way. we are not going to go through the whole map that way and so this theory says what we are seeing today is just normal great power of politics, this goes on for hundreds, thousands, you go all the way back, thousands of years of history, nothing new under the sun here, right? russia was weak, soviet union collapsed. now russia is back, it has power and they're behaving like great power again. nothing new under the sun and by the way, that's how all great powers including the united states act. and i want to say, first, part of that theory, part of this explanation is true. power matters in the international system and power matters for the story in my
book. i'm worried to say i usually pause and say anybody from maldova? good, i'm worried there might be somebody from maldova even though we are at stanford. i love maldova. that came out wrong. i went with the vice president in 2011 and spoke before 50,000 people, probably largest audience that he ever had because he didn't chance in vice presidential time, i love moldova, i urge you to go. but we are not talking about moldova today because moldova does not have the power to threaten europe and redraw borders and weak states create problems for the united states as we learned tragically on september 11 but we are talking about russia tonight and i write about russia in the book because russia has power to do things in the world, annex territory, support people like assad and to intervene in our elections,
right, so power matters. but -- there's two buts i want to focus on. i can think of great powers that rose up and didn't annex territory of neighbors and didn't threaten the liberal order. japan, germany comes to mind, you know, i'm feeling good, i might even add poland to this. poland is more powerful and nobody is worried about them invading neighbors. we are going to have a war conflict with china because of rising power. i don't believe that. i think other variables come into play and i don't want to get ahead of skis in predicting that but i want you to focus it's not inevitable. there must be something more for the story in order to have complete picture of why we are in confrontation with russia today. the second reason i feel even more strongly about that is because when i was ambassador the number one project for putin
was creating something that most of you haven't heard, i see some ukrainians, there are people that know it. this is a weird crowd. i don't -- there's a lot of people that know a lot of things about international relations but something that most of you never heard of before, euroash, answer to eu, gattgather countries of soviet union and critical to making that thing work was to have ukraine join. he had belarus, when i was ambassador, we were writing memos, focus on this, focus on this. nobody read memos, they are called cables. i don't know why they are called cables, it was left over from time earlier. trying to say this is the most important thing to putin. nobody paid attention but for him the focus was on ukraine, here is why?
anybody buy anything called with label on the back of it, notice i said that, made in russia. what did you buy caviar? are you sure it was legal? you can buy caviar. that's not made in russia, packaged, fish from russia. vodka, you can buy vodka. i have been in park, whatever it's called. you can buy beer. i would not encourage it. it's not very good. i buy it every now and then for nostalgic purposes. but my point is there's not a lot of made in russia goods sold here because russia doesn't make a a lot of goods that we want to buy. in ukraine are a lot of consumers that buy russian goods. back then to get ukraine to join was key to making this thing whole. so if that's your goal, that's
your main strategic goal, how is it that you invade ukraine, seize crimea guarantying that ukraine will never what was back then your biggest project? to answer that question we need some more proximate variables, right, we need something closer to the events that happened. all right, argument number two, it's all our fault. we americans, we screw up everything everywhere and we are responsible for everything everywhere and here is, you know, this is another instance of u.s.-foreign policies screwing everything up so we lecture them about markets an democracy, i was part of that crew in early 90's as katherine said, we expanded nato, we bombed serbia, we invaded iraq, we allegedly, we didn't but we allegedly supported revolutions in jordan 2003 and putin had to push back.
finally said i'm not going to take it anymore and pushing back on imperillistic from the united states and i want to underscore, all of these things happened, these are facts and most of them, all of them actually created tensions in u.s.-russian relations, that is all true. in between all of this and our current moment of confrontation there was cooperation. we called it the reset and during this period after all that stuff happened we sat down first with president elect obama, president elect obama by the way was the first person to use the word recess in december 2008 and we told them about the history and he said, come on, man, i'm the new guy, why do we have to worry about something that happened in ancient history to get in the way of our interest and he would turn to me and say, the russians wants iran to get a nuclear weapon, i'd say no, mr. president, they don't, why
can't we work together on that, do russians want terrorists to win in afghanistan, well, no, why can't we work together on that, what about nuclear weapons, don't they want to reduce them, we said, yes, over the course of this policy review, by the way, we did a very thorough interagency policy review, not a lot of evidence happening in washington these days but we -- for better or ill we were joking about it last week. we were process-oriented folks and we came up with this idea, pretty simple idea that let's work with russia and what the president called win-win outcomes and at least the difficulties does not link them, we did not do linkage to other kinds of issues in u.s.-russian relations and there we go, off to the races, third day of office, first day of office for both of us, called president to
lay out argument. i was going to make the joke about his hair but i'm not going to do that. that's not fair. i walked out, by the way after that and still bush folks an secret service folks worked for bush, they said you cannot touch desk, i don't know if that's true. nobody briefed me about that before. all right. and, you know, i'm not going to go through list in detail. i want you to read the book, there's chapters on it but i want to remind you that we have some big things done in this period. it wasn't just holding hands and singing kumbaya and wanting better relationship. let's have a piece of chocolate cake and we are good and we love each other as friends. no, it was about really concrete things that we thought were in america's national interest and we assumed that the russians, this is president would not sign
up to them if they were not in russia's national interest. that was a great day for me. this was a fantastic day, we are in prague, they sign agreement reducing by 30% the number of nuclear weapons in the world allowed in each country. this was then a fun day too. this was the day that it was ratified at the end of the year, the last day before senate winter break. we went down, you know, i watched the vice president preside as we got to 72 votes, i remember very vividly watching senator mccain walk down the hall and had finger like this and he got up and he went like that and he voted against that. but he's a good guy and he was very good to me, by the way, throughout my entire career including as u.s. ambassador. and, again, you know, i love my job here at stanford, i'm grateful. this is paradise and i'm going to be here for the rest of my life but some days here at stanford the years kind of blur,
you know, what did i do in 2003, you know? i published an article in the journal in democracy. i see larry diamond, maybe i did that. i can't remember which one and even in government, government is really hard to do anything, most people just be, they are just i am deputy assistant secretary or i was deputy to deputy assistant secretary. it's so hard to do anything. it's like the interagency process. you work through it and you finally get an agreement and the other side gets to vote, the russians get a vote, chinese get a vote, iranians got a vote. 2010 we did something big, as vice president said that's a big -- word that begins with f deal. i just can't say words like that and i felt that's pretty good, that's what i did in 2010, got rid of 30% of nuclear weapons in the world. what did you do? ..
i think for their first time ever -- mess if you know i'm wrong, correct me during questions. think for the first time since world war 2, american soldiers were flying through russian air space. think about that. that's about as close to a strategy yuck partnership as you -- startic partnership as you get. we did that, just so you fund the importance of it, we needed to reduce the dependency of pakistan. we had an idea to take the war effort into pakistan from time to time, including very
dramatically on a day in 2011 when we killed osama bin laden. we would not have been able to do that operation had we not reduced the dependence. the day before i was in the oval office, i was summoned the oval office on a saturday but one of my bosses, didn't is in mcdonough, and she said, we have to do some business today with kazakhstan. i say why today, it's saturday. just spent a lot of quality time with you the last five day us. he said, get down here, we have to do this. and enhancement to ndn. and i was giving argue; you're not understanding the domestic politics of kazakhstan, dennis. this is not the right time to do this. propose we do this six weeks later after some election. he said i'm really appreciative, mr. professor, you don't want to be called a professor when
you're working at the white house. i really appreciate all your intimate knowledge of kazakhstan politics butber doing there is deal today. get your ass down here. the president will be calling, and the next day was the operation against osama bin laden. third, iran sanctions. i'll go faster here. most comprehensive set of sanctions we have ever had in the history of the u.n. security council, led to what i think was terrific deal with the iranians that unfortunately our president juster to up last week. don't do that without russian cooperation. and then this last category, it's important for students here to remember the nonevents in history. they get written out easily. but for me, the scariest day by far working at the security council was in the spring of 2010, the president was overthrown in.
felt like we were on the verge of an ethnic civil war in kyrgyzstan. and you may not think that's a big deal, but i just mentioned the manas air base, we changed the name to make it more accommodating nor russians back in 2009, called it's transit center, i with a oft airplanes there -- with a lot of airplanes there. over 95% of our troops went through manas. it was scary and felt live a revolution but didn't end inning a decree moan -- acrimony and they got on the phone and said both of our countries need to resolve this. we helped to diffuse the war. other results. like to remind people, five
years ago, this is just in colorado springs, russians and americans jumping out of airplanes, doing counterterrorist training together. we did a bunch of economic thing. most people they seem small but every box represents literally thousands of hours of my life. that regime was in associations with the russians and dhs. very hard. we had everything moving in the right direction. we brought dmitry medvedev stanford because he wanted to build a silicon valley-like thing and we said you have to have an university, it's called skoltek now. these were pretty good days of cooperation conversation showed even as a society, over 60%, roughly 60% of russians had a positive view of the united states back then, at the peak of the reset, and almost a similar number of americans had a positive view of russia back in
the peak of the reset. and i want to remind you, all of these things happen, everything i just described, happened after nato expansion, after the orange revolution, after the iraq war. in fact, i was on every single phone call with the president with medvedev and putin during the period, until i went to become ambassador. at most meetings, and nato expansion never came up once. not once. solved issue. our republican friends criticized it, said it was a solved issue but none of these issues were a drama in our relationship. so to get an a in mcfaul's class, some of my students are here -- you cannot cite those earlier variables as an explanation for today's confrontation without haven an explanation for that period of cooperation. that makes no sense. you can't say we're fight today but nato expansion when we had
period when nobody was thick about nato expansion. that leads me to my third and last argue. which is i think they heart of the matter. russian domestic politics. here there's a lot of variables and they're in the book, please buy the book and all the knew nuance there, but there are two really important events that happened here. by the way, both of these events happened between the time that i had signed up to be ambassador, and agreed that i would do the job, and my arrival. so i want you to think about that going through other slide. these things happened after i agreed to go out and serve as ambassador, one in september 2011, putin decided he wants to be president again. he's tired of med met being president. i'll tell you more but that in a minute. and in september 2011 they do this little switcheroo and he starts running for president. the election was in march 2012.
we got to know putin very well during the period, maybe not as well is a would have liked. what we came to learn these two gentlemen had rather radically different world views. in fact, the day this happened -- wasn't the day. it was two or three days later, september, i went in to see the president, about something else, i can't remember exactly what. and after the meeting he pulled my arm and pulled me back into the oval office and said, what do you think? what are we going to do about this? i initially gave him the party line, which is put is a big dog, he is a big decisionmaker, that's what everybody said at the time. right? they all said to us, you're naive dealing with medvedev. putin always made the decisions so i repeated that and said of course your personal capital you built up with medvedev, we can't use that, but we'll get on with what we have to do. we don't get to choose their leaders and he looked at me and
said, come on, man. you don't really believe that. said, no, don't really believe that. things are going to change. we're going to have a lot harder time with his guy because i have known putin since the spring of 1991, and i wrote my first article warning the world about putin in march 2000, and of course i knew things would get more complicated, and fundamentally, if medvedev is willing to see win-win outcomes with the united states, in fact na that signing ceremony, in prague, he did his remarks in russian and right the end he turned and smiled to obama and he said in english, barack, this is a win-win outcome. and barack smiled because that was a phrase he use a lot of times. putin sees the world in zero sum
terms, he sees us as a competitor on a good day and an enemy on a bad day, and a particular this third one is the one i want to focus on just for a little bit. he thinks that america uses overt and covert power to overthrow regimes we don't like. guess what? there's a lot of empirical data to support that high moth this over american power. that's true. i it happened. we tried make an argument we're different. in fact, this the first meeting between president obama in prime minister putin. i was sweating bullets because i'm a note taker and i can't read my own hand writing and that becomes the record. the meeting was suppose last for an hour and 55 minutes into the meeting, the president had not spoken because putin had a big
speech and i was supposed to read it out to at the press and i'm thinking what aim going to tell them, for a 5 minutes my -- 55 minutes my guy said smog. thank through it went three and a half hours and we had a lot to say. went back and forth. hees essence of the meeting was the following. putin wanted to lecture the new guy but owl the mistakes the bush administration made, and he had a long speech. he had many, many instances and he comes prepared for meetings. note to president trump, he comes prepared for meetings. you better, too if you're going to do business. he walked through the litany of mistake busy when we got iraq erring he said you're idiots. you don't understand the middle east. look at the mess you made. and obama said, you're right. i agree. and putin is like, whoa, i'm playing the russians, you're playing the americans. those are my talking points, and he didn't say that but he kind of looked at him funny, and
obama said, you may have forgetten and i was against the war. her like, maybing this guy is different. he talks different. looks different. maybe this is a break with the past. and as we walked out to the car, they're kind of bantering back and forth. i get the sense putin had an open mind, maybe we'll have a way to work with these folks. workingive medvedev. ben there done that. i did that with push but work with president med met and see what happens. two years later, lots of evidence in put's view that obama was just like bush. egypt, libya -- libya, in all of these instances in the year 2011, what you'll see here, massive demonstrations against
autocratic regimes. when we got libya in particular, we felt there was -- we're on the verge of ideas ideas in benghazi and we wanted to take military action but because obama believed in international institution his said as precondition we have to gate security council resolution and in march 2011, we did that. i was at the meeting with medvedev in moscow, this time with the vice-president, when he said, you guys are right. these regimes are corrupt. and we have to be on the right side of history, and for the first time ever in soviet or russian history, they abstained on the security council resolution, 1970 and 1973, authorizing the universe force in libya. and in many ways, is a have a
whole chapter on this in the book, that what's height of cooperation in the reset. imagine russians and americans agreeing to use force inside to the sovereign country of dictator to say lives but that was the ends of the reset because putin said, medvedev made a mistake and he decided this guy has been drinking too much reset kool-aid. i'm going to have too take over because lease to close to the chest. syria is the most tragic because of mistakes we made but this is 2011. demonstrations all over the middle east, and then at the last month in 2011, it happen friday russian. putin comes back and demonstrations. what happened here? normal election, falsified under
normal levels. yeah, 5%, 6%. that's normal for russia back then. that was our assessment. but that wasn't their assessment. with their smartphones, with the contact, with twitter, facebook, they captured the evidence of falsification, sun it around and then 50, then 500, then 100,000, and eventually 200,000 people went on to the streets of moscow, first to say, give us back our vote, and then later, as what happens when you get that many peopling to, they started to criticize the putin regime. russia without putin became one of the cheers. and remember, the last time that many people were on the streets of moscow, 20 years earlier, the year, the soviet union collapsed. the event that putin called the greatest tragedy of the 20th 20th century. think about that. pretty tragic century. that's what he thought. so, seeing those crowds meant
that he needed a new game plan for how to deal with those crowds. his first reaction was actually anger. saw him at a meeting and he's like those kid, they called them the creative class, i made them rich. brought to them off they're knees. they have all their fancy iphones and lab tops because of me. how could they betray me. and if you look at the demographics it what's -- it was the young people. then hi next ranges was -- next reaction was fear and began to create aning arement to undermine their legitimacy to call them the puppets of the west, and to do so he had to revive us, the west, and the united states, as the enemy. to say that we were controlling these people. we were sending them money. america, obama, and me. now, i want to say for the record, this started before i got him get to moscow in january
of 2012. just for the record, i didn't cause all this mess. he started saying these things weld before i showed ump. that's putin speaking. when he showed up i became the poster child for this kind of criticism. in fact, one of the campaign folks that worked for him, said to me, somebody i've known for a long time, he said, mike,-remember, putin is running for relieve hex. mike, he said, you're from manna from heaven. you showed up right at the right time because you look like an american, you talk like one and have been writing but democracy and revolution, don't take it permanently when we go -- personally when we go after you. when we take shots a little you, bear with us. we're going to use you. the person i'm accused of creating here, i i tried to joke on twitter, he went to yale for six months and they said, mcfaul
had orchestrated this secret training program for him. and tweeted out, how would a stanford guy ever send anybody to yale? you got the joke, they didn't get the joke on twitter. and during this period, i wasn't joking when i said i became the poster child. literally became the poster child. this is a calendar put out in 2012, in english and russian, all the other months of the year are various opposition leaders. mcfaul's girls they were called. then you have heard about disinformation, fake news, something we have now come to understand that the russians are pretty good at the tower system. several years earlier they were doing that. a little cruder back then. much more sophisticated now. for those that don't read russian, on the left is a poster put up at a bus station and it says, may 6th, 2012, the political circus is coming to town.
and i'm surrounded by opposition figures, and i'm list thread as the artistic director of the opposition. that by the way was the day that there was violence and people were arrested and some of them are still in jail today. the other photo is me allegedly campaigning for nevaldy when he ran for mayor the 2013. i hope that's obviously photoshops. do not have hands like that. i wish i did. i'd be a better basketball marry. just to give you a little flavor, this is the news. turn it it. [speaking in foreign language] >> this is me. this is called disinformation. >> so the basic story here for those who don't speak russian, i'm being removed as ambassador because i failed to bring about
the revolution. you see i'm an expert in the revolution, did not have plane like that, by the way. these are the people coming to get instruction from me. that's a part of this. [speaking in foreign language] that's -- [inaudible] -- an exile in estonia. you get the flavor. then it got nsay, got really nasty. february, 2012, when this video -- actually is not funny for me. know i set you up with that other one it but this was a horrible video. this is the last side of the video, and came out on youtube, and luckily i have some friends in google and they
pulled it down. but then it appeared on other web sites in russia. to this day if you go to yanx and going mill name, macfall pedestrian file -- pedophile, three million hits disappear. how difficult disinformation is. so what ow do you do? quit on twitter and say i'm not a pedestrian file and then you're -- pedophile and then you're arguing bat nonfact. is this part of how this system works. had good company hoarse the president, and now you can laugh at this. you don't know the story because you don't read russian. some people laughing over there. this is channel 1, news, the comparing -- at first you may not think that obama is the same as -- has the same ideology as the leader of isis, on the right. if you look closer, barack
hussein obama has the same world view, the same ideological orientation at -- bag daddy. be a could not get over no amount of diplomacy would fix that. notice a pattern in lots of big crowd demonstrating against regimes. this is now ukraine. we actually -- the story is, yanukovych would not sign the agreement and people in the ukraine said we want to join the -- and thing got nasty, hundreds were are were cold and her goal in this was to solve the crisis. maybe that was bad and ukrainians criticized what we did at the time, but joe biden was trying to cut a dean dwell yanukovych and the opposition to diffuse the conflict and push it down the road. february 21st, we thought we
had a deal i. was in sochi at the time, at the olympics. my blackberry is blowing ump. we cut a deal, everything is fine, but then six hours later i got another e-mail. anyanukovych -- an can ceviche s in russian it was mystery use why he fled right after the cut a deal. for putin just a replay of the same old cia game plan. and when he lost his guy, that is when he decided to go into ukraine, seize crimea, and when it was cheap and to cheap in my mind herb went into eastern ukraine to double down. that to me was the end of the cold war period, and really the beginning of the hot peace. then he went on the offensive. rather than just responding to these things, he decided in 2016
to go on the offensive, both ideologically around the records and even in our own election, and he is going to continue to do that, i think, for as long as he is in power. all right. i went on longer than i thought because i was tell doing many stanford stories so i'll end on this one. the good news i don't believe putin has master plan to recreate the over jet union. i see no evidence. i see a tactical emotional guy that is willing to play his cards with pore aggression than ever before. gotten more risky with time. that is true. but i don't see like a grand plan no recreate the soviet union. nor do i see these kind of cultural or historical or balance of power arguments that would destin to us be in conflict with russia forever. my story it but -- individuals matter, power matters but
individuals matters, contingent outcomes matter. no demonstrators in ukraine. maybe our relationship is different. no demonstrators in russia, maybe our relationship was different. we're not the only actors in the world. that's one thing learned clearly that when you sit in the white house and think you control things, there's a lot of things you don't control. so mine is much more of a contingent story. the bad news is don't see putin changing his views about us but a it's not a policy tweaking. it's much more fundamental. he just was re-inaugurated, sworn in for another six year term mitchell prediction is he'll be there long after 2024 and the guy works threes hours a day. so i think tragically, obviously not where i want it to end in terms of u.s.-russian relations when i was a kid going to lenen in grad in 1983. we need to develop a
comprehensive strategy, bipartisan --ing say that it 40,000 times -- bipartisan strategy how to deal with putin's russia which is mostly containment when we must occasionally cooperation when we can, and sometimes we just have to not give putin and his antics machs time and attention as we sometimes do. but if you really want to dig in into all this stuff, one thing you have to do, and with that i'll hand. you have been very patient, thank you very much. [applause] >> we have 20 mounds for questions you have been extremely patient so i'll try to be quick. i pretends we have twitter questions. if you could just introduce yourself and then make sure we're asking questions. if you want to give your speeches, hit me on twitter and
i'll try to stopped to the later. >> i'm class of 356 at the business school. >> thank you. >> thank you for your comments today and for all the time us i've heard you on npr and television programs where you provide your expertise. >> thank you. >> i wish i could spend three weeks at your feet listening to all the things you have to say but because i have a limit time for a question i want to focus on the state department and i'm absolutely aghast how they're desecrating that entire organization. are we going to see a permanent degradessation of that are can we recover? >> well, secretary tillerson made a mess of it. i'm exterior -- i'm sorry to be so blunt i. didn't know him personally but i worked with his company because they cut a big deal while i was working in the government, and i kept an open mind because some other people around here were more supportive of him than i was. at the end of the day, he just didn't understand what he was
doing and it was horrible. i know a lot of people, hundreds of people that worked in the building -- and these are -- bothers med a little bit. you have given me a chance to get on my soap box. i also world with some women and men in the military, serving our country overseas, i loved being on the team. just loved being on the team america with all these people. but we always say, thanks to the service of our men women and men over seas in military atlanta. are women and men, men and women, working for the state department, working for usaid, and they are just as great americans as those people in uniform ask they're part of the american team, and so when he went after them to cut them, while we're building up the military is not america's interest to do that and i'm glad that is stopped. what i hear storying just? d.c. a couple days ago and met with folks in he state department. that pompeo, the new secretary, is reversing that, and i have a
lot of disagreementsagreementsam baio about policy issues, i think they made a huge mistake about iran and i'm nervous but north korea but i'm glad he is bringing that attention. those people deserve it, especially working in moscow. showed you some things that he happened to me. that happened to all of my staff. they need our support. [applause] >> yes, yes. >> isaac. >> hi, i'm one of your students. so you list the libyan intervention as one of the successes of the reset. and u.n. security council 1973, which you guys got medvedev to support. it gives the international community permission to protect civilians. the obama administration took it's step further and attacked moammar gadhafi's convey and led to his death. is it possible you didn't -- the obama administration went too
far in pushing medvedev in this situation and if you hadn't, he'd still be president after this decision? >> yeah. it's a good question. good one to write you paper about. so i think two things. one issue want to be clear, i'm not sure that this was the moment that putin pushed medvedev aside. that's my speculation. putin never told me that. we're not exactly facebook friends. actually maybe we are facebook friends given all the trolls out there trolling me every night and i think i'm talking to somebody and turned out it's putin. who knows. and most certainly medvedev thought he had a shot for a second term, all the way up to september. maybe he was being delusional, but he thought he was in the game. as i used to say, putin --
medvedev wants to run for re-election, and he just has to win one vote to win, putin's, and his argument was, i can be the good face of russia while you do these other stuff internally, and that is why i think libya was a turning point because i think putin thought i can't trust this guy. doesn't understand these americans the way i do. to your second part, yes, it was not our plan to do regime change in libya. i want to say that emphatically. that was not our plan. hour plan to was to stop cad -- gadhafi's army from slaughtering people in benghazi, and over -- once you intervene, get into the mix, as my mother from montana would say, shit happens. it got out of control weapon didn't kill gadhafi. we had nothing to do with his murder and didn't want it and
actually tried to work their russians and a guy -- nit the book -- my friend to try to figure out a way to get gadhafi out of the country because we were worried exactly but the scenario that happened. and we even cleared air space so he could fly in on a government jet, into trip lee tripoli because he knew gadhafi and didn't work. i say that loud a lot of things in government. you have a game plan and you sit in that windowless room in the white house situation room, run through 28 contingencies and the then point of contact, a lot of things happen that you're not prepared for, and there's no doubt that medvedev was very disappointed in what happened in fact we were in france, i remember it very vividly. he's a pretty calm, cool guy, kind of like obama, verse rational, reasoned, not a lot of
drama-but in that meeting he was upset and felt like we had betrayed him by letting the mission creep beyond that. that's good point. good luck with the paper. >> thank you, ambassador. i wonder if you can comment on the nature of russian collaboration in the cold war ask the hot peace so in the cold war we had a russian jewel in the crown of the cia, dim milt tri, what -- what is the prospect theoretically and the necessity for this type of collaboration going forward. >> spies, you mean. most of what i know, i'm not stupid enough to talk about right now. it's called classified, and i take that very seriously. i actually got my book cleared twice, just so you know, because i was so afraid of some classified information dripping out. and i wanted to make sure that didn't happen. all i would say -- one chapter
in the book is called "burgers and spies." and it talks about a spy swap that we we need did in 2010 andt was inspirational for the tv show called "americans." we should get some royalty for that because we did that. and i would just say then, two things. one, spying is part of the business and all countries have the capacity to do it, do it and we have a lot of capacity, and i'm glad we have that capacity. russia has a lot of capacity. i wish they had less but they have a lot of it. i'm sure they're with is right now. the first time i was read into what they could do, it was astonishing, and when we lived in the russia, i had to assume that every e-mail, every phone
call, that i made, every movement i made, was recorded. and if you're at any hotel in russia, to think about where you -- you should assume everything is recorded. that's what they can do. we even had a special room. think this is in the become. hope it's not confidential. i'm looking at donna, should i say it or not? i don't think it's confidential. they told you and you didn't have a security clearance. when they -- yeah. [inaudible] >> don nice always urging on the side of caution. they briefed us. we got there we're going through our briefing, super excited -- we lived in this fabulous house. if you ever get the chance to be ambassador anywhere, do it. but we lived in this fabulous house, and i want to make clear, i've been on the negative stuff, but some of the things being ambassador, it was awesome.
i'm going to come back to my wife in a minute. going to make sure i got the permission. you know, here's what -- my day job meant things like -- what's a good example -- oh, you know, we had a ballroom, seats 600 people. my job was to invite my best friends to have herbby hancock play in my house. my kid loved the day we hosted the nba at my house. that was nice. just the honor in case i forget to say this this, honor of being your representative in russia, the americans representative in russia, president obama's -- that was just an honor of a lifetime. in fact we got in fight one time really early on with my body guards about flying the flag. ambassador cars usually cadillac
and there's a place for the flag on the right-hand side and all this harassing. was going on and my bodyguard said we should take that flag down so we can travel around the city and people won't know who we are. and i was like, sergei, you got to be kidding me, man. we're driving around in this giants black cadillac, with two sub-under are -- sub urbansing us, you don't think they know i'm the ambassador? we're going to fly the flag. i'm proud to fly the flag. the anecdote about the spies, they if you need to argue, this is in the book? it's in the book so okay. so, it got cleared by at the state department. i they said if you have a marital spat, we have special room that you can do that in. please don't do it in spasa house but there's a special secure room you can have your argue. and i yourself want to report for the record thankfully we never had to use that rooming
right. >> hi, mike market didn't dish. >> host: good to see you. >> so, i mean issue didn't read the book yet, but the -- >> have you've bought it? >> i will. i want you to sign it. >> host: i care more that you bought it than if you read it. >> i was waiting for you to sign it. so, the way you characterize it here, it sounds like put put is rather one-sided. he made a decision that he was going to go nationalist, going to -- >> yes. >> -- restore russian press he become prestige, et cetera. isn't there more contradiction? want modernize russia. >> i'm not sure but that it. >> he does certain things to mange it seem like he wants to -- do things within russia that do that.
realize his power, the -- you ended up with that it's russian politic that are driving this. >> right. got the question am good question. putin is more complex than the why i described and that's why it take mist 500 pages to the at the story but don't be alarmed, 50 pages or footnotes because i'm an academic, but martin, you're right. didn't start out here and i talk about that in the book. when i first met hem he was working for the democratically elected mayor of moscow. we met in 1991 and he was working with him as part of the dental -- democratic movement. he was against the coup plotters. he then loses his job in st. petersburg -- an interesting fact -- free and fair democratic election. kind of cool. there has to be losers and
competition so chuck is voted out of pair and looking for a job and got vote out, looking for a job, one of his liberal foe former friends, not some kgb guy, gets him a job working in the kremlin for boris yeltsin. i want to make sure you understand, putin is a completely accidental president. chosen out of nowhere, in the wake of the august 1998 financial collapse. the heir apparent back then was actually another person i knew well before his assassination, boris -- and he was a charismatic, prodemocratic, proliberal leader, governor, and at the height of economic depression in russia he managed to be re-elect it out in the hinterlands lat a time when
liberals were not popular. jewish and proudly jewish this notion that russians can't vote for democrat or jewish leader. he was the heir apparent and you don't believe me, yeltsin said it on the record many time inch between, choosing him, and the next -- the presidential race, there's this financial collapse, all over the world, right? august 1998. comes to russian, so shock in the language of political science, one predicted. the government has to resign, and in the wake of that, he chooses this obscure guy that was working in his -- in the kremlin, at the time he was made prime minister in august, he had a 6% or 7% recognition rate. most russians could not even recognize the guy. let alone plus or minus. didn't know who he was. chosen, i think, mostly to protect the property rights of
yeltsin and his family, not because he was going to be some reformer. so there one some societal demand for him. and back then, to your point, he was not antiwestern as much. his analytic framework was put in place in these kgb school, if a you're a young man like him, joining the kgb when he did, that means you have a certain political orientation and the certainly -- didn't take poly sky 35 with contractser -- contractser in. had a mental map of the world but is was more complex and in an early phases he believed in markets. he cut taxes 13%, flat tack, cut corporate taxes. was a merchandizer, was a modernizer back them and had around him people that i consider economic modernizers as well. never for democracy. he shot that down as quickly as he could, but with the west and
markeds hi wasn't dug in. over time, he has changed. over time he has become much more conservative, in terms of his values. he really does believe he is the leader of a world conservative movement, orthodox value, christian value, family values as defined by him and is push back against the deck can't -- decadent west and he is spinning billions of dollars to propagates those ideas. that took place over time. with respect to the economy, it's more complex story but i think the simple view is he didn't push for rule of law, didn't try to guarantee the permissionsive conditions for investment. instead, he redistributed the thing that are worth owning. so today there's 20% more
property that's opened by the state than there was when he took over. that's not merchandization, that's going backwards and the big project that meted in -- that medvedev try to do bring investment in the high-tech world, he shied away from that. he has become more suspicious of independent economic actors and some of them he has arrested and put in jail. aguy used to know well end up in jail a month jail. you're not reading the, "because in russia he is also in trouble. her has had a couple of his people arrested by putin there think about howe bad his life his. he governments of america sanctioned him, they're arrest his people in russia, and mueller is after him. that's bad troika. but it's a grate great point. wasn't inevitable. between 2012 and 2014, the
period i was ambassador, there were pockets of cooperation with him. we did the jeer chemical wins dealing and that's when the signed the exxonmobil deal. think annexation when he said, okay, i've had it with these americans. don't care what they do. don't want to join their clubs. we'll go a different way. over here. >> thanks. i'm margaret williams, a master student here. >> yeah. >> if you could talk but the roll of american public opinion or perception in u.s.-russia relations. during the world war you mentioned as high school student in montana you feared the tension between our countries. your mom saw the soviet union as the evil empire. i don't think that consensus exist. our president not sure if he sees putin as a friend ors a sir vary, how does that impact u.s. foreign policy and pruitt -- president putin's able to carry
out the campaign against the west. >> margaret, that's big, hart question and you're not writing a term paper for me. that sounds like a good thesis. don't have a sound bite answer to that. i do know that there is a causal relationship, which is to say when societal attitude are more positive, gives you mow freedom to maneuver in terms of more audacious things and when it's negative, it constrains you. when wayns he government we're often times constrain bid republicans in congresses. certain things they would not let us. do missile defense cooperation, for instance. and i have a chapter on it in the book. we had a pretty ambitious plan to try to cooperate with them and those that were more suspicious of russia -- the medvedev days -- were suspicion of that cooperation. in fact, we spent some quality
months in the mariott waiting to good to moscow, quality months with my family but there is would a hold put on my nomination and he looeder was senator mark kirk from illinois, republican, and and she said to me the first meeting went bad. i'm doing the rounds and my handler at the time was a guy, denis mcdonough who becomes the chief of staff. hi saidor job is to sit and say, that's a sir interesting question and i look forward to get back to you on that. i don't want to put words in his mouth but he basically say your boss is a traitor and i can't trust him and i pushed back, and the meeting lasts 45 seconds, and he said i think we're done here. and i called dennis and said, dennis, the meeting only lasts
45 second. not a good. he said, yes, you screwed that one up, macfall but it later made piece with senator kirk but there was domestic political constraint and he got his amendments to national defense there's act that required to us give the senate information've we gave tote the russians. a check on them and that was the quid quid pro quo to get the lift off of me p. putin today has -- in the numbers are negative 80 in term's how the russians think of us. the have been fighting a war against us. nazis and nato, that's the two n words. in the embassy, and the wore in ukraine is not with ukrainians, it's with us. that's the way it's portrayed and has had rallying reasons the
flag effect as it does all over the world and it's hard to pivot away from that and say we're in this struggle against nazis and american imperial rhythm. tieral jim and we're going to move the other way. he can do it because it's not a democratic society but i thick creates constrains and they're a group around him that don't have an interest in cooperation with us. they like this isolation. that is a way for them to keep their property rights. they don't want competition in the market. they prefer to be isolated. and that's another set of interest groups that also put pressure on him, and i think occasionally -- can't prove husband -- i think occasionally do audacious things and sometimes even a bribe. not ordered be putin by would way to keep him captive in this confront additional relationship with us. >> how about last two questions. katherine just gave me the
signal. last three. you have been sitting there patiently. i'll take them alling to and -- all together and then -- is that okay? you're the authority here, not me. i'll take them all three and then we'll end. >> great. i'm a student in your class. >> yes. >> sorry. he knows who i am. >> have a piece of paper? >> my question was issue was struck by the story you told of put's reaction to the 2011 gathering of mostly young people, this idea of these kids, and put's reaction -- putin's reacts and this idea of anger, made them rich and can you speak to any other elements where you think that putin actually has felt betrayed or didn't get credit for the things that he thought he actually was doing for the russian people. >> good question. okay. over here, yes.
>> i'm anna -- >> hi, anna. >> a masters student. so -- >> on russia. >> my question is more about the process of writing a book. >> it's hard. i've been on these interviews over the least week and say say your labor love, i say, no, it's labor no love involved. >> gets harder when you're writing a book during the period of time when he russia-americans relations deteriorate faster and faster. i imagine that's would give you kind of an urge to go back and to rewrite something or add something or edit something. as a reaction, like, subliminal reacts to what is happening. was this the case and maybe you can share some examples. >> okay. good. >> ambassador, i appreciate the comments today. got some great insight from you. my question is about about the
recent appointment of the prime minister of russia. dmitry medvedev. what does that mean for russia and about putin's world view? >> thank you. great last question. i'll take them in different order so i can end where i want to end. on medvedev, there are lot of rumors about who was questioning to be the next prime minister and a lot of hope among the business community, both the american and russian, that they was going be a new reformer, back to the conversation with martin. and kudran the form finance minner was floated. man who -- a -- the fact he went back to medvedev and didn't choose the other guys -- and they thought kudran would get a big job and he will have a
pretty small job running the audit chamber. not exactly prime minister. suggests that continuity and stability is more important -- continuity and stability is more important to putin than to pivot and the people he fired were the more prowestern people. so those are not optimistic sign. the american business community, they had a lot of optimism this would be a moment for change. just saw many of them last week and they're pretty despondent by that choice. second, mckenzie's question. it's a good question. think for him i left out -- where did you go -- okay. you know, where he -- i think he has a legitimate complaint is after september 11th, he was one of the first leaders to call the white house. actually got condi first but
late irtalked to president bush and saw his was a moment where we had a common enemy, terrorists and he leaned in, and he experienced terrorists in his country and said i'll do whatever i can to help you. back then not everybody supports him to do that. and he did several things. that were important. helping us with the northern alliance, for instance. their allies that later became our allies and he cooperated with us. opening up the base menas, that happened with vladimir putining a pressure on the governments to inoccupy the bases to cooperate with us i. think the fact that we were with him then and the end kind of forget but his assistance, that's chip on his shoulder and he told president obama about it in the same photoed i showed you, but i think that's legitimate and had we constanted more closely with them on that -- even on iraq he
intimated, you treat me as a partner instead of just telling ming what to do i might have been able to go along with you on that. so that's fair. think it's on overstatement to claim that he did -- he is the one that brought economic growth to russia. that's just not true. the economic reforms, the painful economic reforms that were put in place over the '90s, including the last year and a half by liberal reformers -- all post communityist countries went through this period of economic depression. nothing unusual or different for russia. and then they started to grow the year before putin came back so growing ha turned around before he came back and then right as he appeared, oil prices -- skyrocketed, and a form cal league of mine, who was the first deputy prime minister, took over with -- the first reformer, and he used to joke, anybody can look like an
economic genius when the price of a barrel of oils $100. i was prime minister when it was at nine dollars. so think but that. its happened on your watch you get credit, but it would have happened to whoever was there. last one. things i would have done differently in term oses the story. i didn't want -- there's an epilogue in the book -- i don't see you -- way in the back, oh, wow, i can barely see you. i didn't even want to write -- the epilogue is called "trump-putin." i didn't want to write it. my publishers thought it was a good idea and helped with allowing me to be on anderson cooper and jake tapper today. without that enmichigan maybe i wouldn't be on there i didn't want to right that because that's too contingent and will
be out of date. but there is one part, flying back here the other day i look eight, that it do kind of regret and would have changed. -- i got ill right but -- you asked me what i'd do different. this is what i'd do different. i started this talk saying this a tragedy. right? tragedy in u.s.-russia relations, obama administration, myself, and we should be judges by our results, right? not our intentions. doesn't matter if you tried really hard playing basketball, if you lose the game you lose the game, it's in the loss columnment so no as for effort but i'm noting a actually pessimisticking a the end of the book might sound and this is a good place to end. first of all, i love russia. i love russians. and just because i disagree with
the policies of the person who is in the kremlin, i'm not going to allow those people to deny me that right to continue to love russians and russia. and it happens to me i'm being attacked all the time for the book, a russia phonephone -- phonephone -- -- we can criticize donald trump and doesn't mean we don't love america. give me a break. i wish i would have made that clear. the second thing, i'm an optimist but russian and an optimist but the u.s.-russia relations. maybe i'm an opt nist general. maybe because i was born in montana and has nothing to do with analyzing things but i'm an optimist for two reasons. i'm optimist for all kind of reasons but want to end with two anecdotes. one, noodlehead professor from stanford and two anecdote from being ambassador, as a
professor, i'm sure some of you have taken the -- you know that there's theory that is very robust, called modernization theory and the more well to do a society is the lower likely to become democratic and that's happened over the last couple hundred years, fits and starts, comes and goes, on as even line and we don't know how it gets going but i don't think russia is going to buck that trend. russia is moving in that direction, become here well to do and there's in accident that the wealthiest, most educated, most urban people are also the ones that are protesting. that is a trend you see although world. -- all over the world, seen it in taiwan and korea and all over he globe. it's waning now because of democracy is not doing well but i don't see russia escaping those structural conditions.
but then i want to end with an anecdote. i was at a high-tech company, that's part of your jobber, meet people and i met lots of people, lots of russians. you bed surprised how many oligarch is know. casper ski, i used to see him in a lot of trouble right now, derapasqa in a lot of trouble, a lot of trouble. nobody is in more trouble than he is. when people say sanctions don't mary, call him. sanctions matter. he is in a lot of trouble. anyway. i was at some high-tech company, right after that may 6th 6th demonstration poster i showed you. or sometime after. and i asked people in the audience, it felt like a typical silicon valley scene, and they looked like silicon valley engineers, and i said, how many of you were at that protest? they all raise their hands can. they're all there creativity
class. then another one coming, and i said, how many of you plan to go to that? and only three people raised their hand. all young men. ... my no good for nothing husband could not take your of my kids if i got arrested she didn't say exactly that, but she hinted at that your chi can't go to jail right now. i got to show up to work and pay for my family, but don't confirm minutes that i have change my preferences about this regime, so i'm not going to demonstrate tomorrow and she probably didn't
demonstrate last week when people were being arrested, but i think we make a big mistake if we think that he has this society locked up and they want to be on this path for many years. i don't think he has put the institutions in place for vladimir putin to survive the 10 year. there is no party no organization and it all depends on the one later so i do think there will be change coming and it will be a fight. it won't be clear whether those liberal people working for high tech company will succeed or the born nationalists will succeed, but just last week 85 people arrested in st. petersburg and 12 -year-olds, think about that, 12 -year-olds were arrested last week. you arrest 12 -year-olds protesting, article 31 in the constitution, a constitutional right. you think he's ever going to vote for vladimir putin? so, in the long run i am
incredibly optimistic about russia's future and therefore the future of us russian relations. i just don't know when that long run begins. thank you all. you have been great. [applause]. >> thank you all very much. thank you, michael. if you want to buy the book you can do so on your way out and i believe a mike will stay around for a bit up there outside and we will sign a book for you if you would like. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> you are watching the tv on c-span2, television for serious
readers. here's our primetime lineup tonight. 6:45 p.m. eastern rutgers university history professor accounts the recent-- desegregation of american schools through the actions of young applicant american women's route the country. 7:45 p.m. former first lady michelle obama reflects on her time in the white house and provides a preview of her memoir being published this fall took abc news they had a rams recalls-- recalls abraham lincoln's last legal case, a murder case in 1859. that begins at 9:15 p.m. eastern and at 10 on afterwards pediatric physician mona hannah he tells her efforts to provide scientific evidence that children in flint, michigan were exposed to lead poisoning through the city's water supply. she's interviewed by democratic senator of michigan. we wrap up our primetime
programming at 11:00 p.m. with investigative reporter can then senior on the us government's case against fee for, international soccer's governing body that's tonight on c-span2 book tv, 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books. television for serious readers. >> book tv recently visited capitol hill to as members of congress what they are reading this summer. >> i have quite a stack of books here. the first is meditation of marcus. i read this along time ago but was recently told this is our secretary of defense's favorite books so it's helping me to understand him a bit better to read that. i have a biography here, the rise of theodore roosevelt, an older book that has been out for a long time but i didn't get a chance to read it so i'm looking forward to that and this is the 50th anniversary of tragic
death of senator robert kennedy. chris matthews has a new book out about senator kennedy gotten to know senator kennedy's grandson, joe kennedy, who is a member of the house and this is something i'm looking forward it to. i have another book here that says 1587 a year of significance. it was a book recommended again by secretary mattis and about the meeting dynasty in china and he said if you want to understand china-- modern-day china need to understand the meaning dynasty. this book is on the temptations of power, another way to look into the mindset of what's happening in contemporary middle east and within islam worldwide. this book is something recommended to me, different from the type of reading i usually knew it is called immersions. it's an interesting book about science, science and mystery of freshwater mussels. we have the widest diversity of freshwater mussels in the world in my district in southwest alabama. this thing you could probably throw like a rocket hurt someone
is supposed to be definitive book about cuba took its just called "cuba" and the author's hugh thomas and this has been updated. my final one is a book i've been trying to read for some time now and it's a book by walter isaacson called "the innovator," about the people that have come up with the great ideas we see in the tech world so i don't read fiction. i read nonfiction and some of it is eclectic, but it's usually related to work i'm doing in congress and i'm really grateful to have the help that i have from the library of congress and their experts and recommend books to me that we go and read and then we can return them and asked for other resources if we find something in the book that interests us. >> book tv wants to know what you are reading. cynosure's summer reading via twitter at book tv or instagram at book_tv or posted to our
facebook page, facebook.com. /book tv. book tv on c-span2, television for serious readers. here's a look at authors recently featured on book tvs afterwards, our weekly author interview program including best-selling nonfiction books and guest interviewer's. maryland congressman john delaney declaring the 2020 presidential election laid out his vision for america or television and radio hosts reflected on his broad crest career and syndicated column is jonah goldberg waited on threats to democracy work in the coming weeks on afterwards amanda carpenter, former staffer for ted cruz provides a critical analysis of president trumps political messaging. journalist mike adams recants his 3000-mile trek to alaska and this weekend pediatric physician doctor mona he tells her efforts
to provide scientific evidence that children in flint, michigan were exposed to lead poisoning through the city's water supply. >> after the crisis was revealed and we worked to recover we were starting to get more and more water lead levels and people were getting tested and lead levels of thousands of parts per billion and there is no safe lead level at all in my saddest day came when the lead level of a home which is adjacent to the hospital, a home for foster children and troubled children next to the hospital and their lead in level came back at 5000 parts, so the action level for a wall street-- water system is 15 parts 4 billion and it should be zero, but this home was over 5000 parts per billion in these are the kids that already had every adversity in life, victims
of child abuse or neglect or traumatized. they had no family you know. of these kids already suffered every single trauma there led water level was 5000 parts per billion. it was like the world was conspiring against them and i think that was my lowest moments, you know? how do we care for our most vulnerable children and what does that tell us as a society. >> afterwards airs on book tv every saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern and sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific time. all previous afterward programs are available on our website, book tv.org. >> in a few minutes on the tv will will show you a book program from 2009 it's about retiring justice anthony kennedy's jurisprudence. the book is called "the tie goes to freedom" and the author is professor helen knowles. professor knowles