Trump and Putin in Historical Perspective: How We Got into the New Cold War

I'm Betsy Cannon Smith class of 84 and I'm  delighted to introduce William Taubman the   Bertrand Snell professor of political science emeritus. Professor Taubman is celebrating 50   years of Amherst College this fall 1967 he  arrived congratulations and among us tonight   are many who've studied with the talents both  folks in this room of course and on watching   live with combined degrees from Harvard Yale and  Columbia the professors Taubman, Bill and his wife   Jane who's in the audience and is a professor of  Russian, arrived at Amherst in 1967 a historical   perspective on political science a passion for  and deep knowledge of the former Soviet Union   and an exploration of the impact of leaders and  their personalities has figured prominently in   the work of Professor Taubman he's a model for the  value of and commitment to interdisciplinary work   he's reached across disciplines to colleagues in  history Russian psychology American Studies and   more to co-teach classes such as war poverty  personality and political leadership Russian   politics and rethinking the Cold War today  too is a special day May 24th the first day   of reunion is also the day thirteen years ago  that Professor Tabman received his Pulitzer   Prize for Khrushchev the Man and His Era and a  celebration at Columbia University one of his   alma maters and I see a copy there waiting  to be signed fell from one of our attendees. I   know this as I consulted the historical record  of a reliable local newest news source in Amherst   in an April 2004 edition of the Neighborhood News  the headline read Special Edition Neighbor Scoops   Grand Prize William Taubman wins Pulitzer Prize. In addition with one feature and one alone an   interview with a professor. The young reporters  then 9 and 11 had an exclusive interview right   around the corner at the Taubman's home on Woodside  Avenue in their living room with, and I quote, Mr.   Taubman in the ruby chair and Mrs. Taubman  in the sapphire chair the trick it seems to   garnering the Pulitzer and three other major  awards was to work for 20 years on the topic   you loved. Professor Taubman on why he wrote  the book told the reporters Khrushchev is an   interesting man and I love Russia and he was  a leader of Russia also he was complicated a   mystery and he was funny. And in fun facts, as to  whether he'd ever met, the professor shared that   he'd seen Khrushchev in a car in Central Park  once when he was in college Professor Taubman's study of Gorbachev has occupied the years since  2004 and like Khrushchev I trust he might say he   too was complicated a mystery and more. Professor  Taubman's next book Gorbachev His Life and Times   will be published by WW Norton in September  and featured on Amherst Reads. With the frame   of history and biographies of two major Soviet  leaders as a backdrop I think we are in for a real   treat tonight with a perspective of a scholar  whose life's work has been understanding the   influence of personality on leadership. Please  welcome my friend neighbor and the very fine   William Tuabman on Trump and Putin and historical  Perspective How We Got into the New Cold War. I should immediately tell you that those reporters  who interviewed me in our house were Betsy's three   kids and there was a very funny line in there  which if I'd known you were going to quote it   Betsy, where are you, I would have brought it with  me, but I didn't. Now if I can figure out   where to put my books under there okay well I'm  delighted to be here to be with you old friends   some of you new friends talking about my favorite  subject Russia and the United States originally   I had thought to take a somewhat different  approach given what appeared to be a kind of   mutual admiration society between Trump and Putin  in recent months before the election I like a lot   of other people anticipated an early summit and  in fact when the London Times reported based on   a rumor it turns out that the two would meet  in Reykjavik not long after the inauguration   of Trump I was particularly fascinated because  in my Gorbachev book I wrote about Reagan and   Gorbachev meeting in Reykjavik so I thought  it would be sort of like Old Home Week another   reason I was interested in this meeting that  never has taken place but who knows was that I   could imagine that Trump the deal maker and Putin  would try to make a deal and at the very ends of   this talk I'll get back to that and perhaps even  begin to sketch out what such a deal might be   because I think frankly that it wouldn't have  been depending upon the deal a bad idea given   a state of Russian-American relations anyway in my  talk I had originally planned to go back and look   at Russian or Soviet American summits over the  last 75 years and Stalin Khrushchev and Kennedy   Gorbachev would Reagan and Bush etc to try to pull  out patterns which we might look for or look to be   absent in the Trump and Putin summit but given  the Russian hacking of our 2016 election and the   tumult in American politics as a result it seems  to me that if there's a summit it will take its   time in happening and it's kind of unlikely that  there'll be any kind of deal although we may be   surprised and so I put that aside and decided  to talk instead about how the US and Russia got   into a new Cold War which I believe we are in and  here's how I'd like to go about this I'd like to   start by citing four episodes in the evolution of  that new Cold War from 1989 to the present from   the end of the old Cold War to the beginning of a  new one then I'd like to try to define what I mean   by Cold War or at least what the classic old Cold  War consisted of and asked the question of how   the new Cold War if that's what it is differs from  the old Cold War then thirdly I'd like to identify   three features main features of the new Cold War  and finally I'd like to take an excursion through   the stages of which through which we've arrived at  this new Cold War beginning with Gorbachev Reagan   and Bush and leading up to Putin and Trump so  first of all those episodes the first one I think   you probably all remember visualize the Kremlin  on a bright sunny day June 1st 1988 Gorbachev   and Reagan are slow are strolling in the Kremlin  sunshine a journalist approaches and asks Reagan   do you still consider this an evil empire which of  course he had said Soviet was and Reagan says no   that was another time another era that's how far  they had come at that point the arch Reagan and   the Soviet leader the second episode is December  2nd 1989 this time the scene is Malta and it's   raining it's storming outside but Gorbachev is  meeting on a ship in the harbor with President   George HW Bush and the conversation is so worn  between them that it prompts Gorbachev's foreign   policy assistant Anatoly Chernyaev who alas  recently died at the age of 95. Jane and I got   to know him very well as we worked on Gorbachev.  It prompted Chernyaev to write the following in   his diary: I was astonished at how sincerely Bush  and Baker wanted things to work out for us meaning   the Soviet Union how they wanted our economy to  take off and for us to cope with our own troubles. If you closed your eyes Chernyaev wrote, and block  out the English, you might have thought you were   attending a Politburo meeting in the Kremlin where  everyone was worried about our country's fate so   again these two moments at the end of the old Cold  War in which it looked and it looked for longer   than those moments as if the world was entering  a new era now fast forward as the cliche goes   to December 3rd 2014 and this is Vladimir Putin  speaking to the Russian parliament on what he   takes to have been the American attempt to break  up Russia as I think he would have said although   I'm not asked him about this and he hasn't said  so specifically I think as he thought the US had   tried to break up the Soviet Union before it so he  says despite our unprecedented openness that is in   Russia back then and our willingness to cooperate  in all even the most sensitive issues with the   United States despite the fact that we considered  our former adversaries, the United States, as close   friends and even allies the support for separatism  in Russia from across the pond namely in the   United States including information political  and financial support and support provided by   the special services that is the CIA all that  was obvious and left no doubt that they would   gladly let Russia follow the Yugoslav scenario  of disintegration and dismemberment with all the   tragic fallout for the people of Russia it didn't  work we didn't allow that to happen just as it   did not work for Hitler now in Russian parlance to  compare the United States to Hitler in its effort   to breakup and dismember the Soviet Russia is to  put it fiercely that's about as strongly as it can   be put for a Russian audience now my fourth moment  here involves 2014 again but this time to orbit   off himself saying in various interviews that back  in the 1990 he and other world leaders had talked   of creating a new world order that would be more  just humane and secure than its predecessor but he   continued the Americans continued to play the old  game so as to create a quote new Empire headed by   themselves unquote they quote patted us on the  shoulder they kept saying well done well done   you're doing the right thing but all the while  they were tearing us down looting us tearing us   apart so this is Gorbachev in 2014 joining with  Putin and saying essentially the same thing we   had a guest Jane and I did last weekend a young  or not quite so young anymore Russian historian   now living in the United States and she said that  these words have been put into Gorbachev's mouth   that these are not really this is not really him  he him talking but he's been saying this kind of   things ever since 2007 and he's even said it to us  to Jane and me sitting across the table from him   in Moscow okay what then is a cold war or what  was the cold war at its worst and then I'll ask   how the new cold war differs several features  as defined by a colleague of mine who used to   teach at Columbia Robert Legvold first each side  sees the other as entirely at fault second each   size each side sees the conflict as basically  about ideologically sacrosanct purposes of each   country rather than geopolitical interests that  might be more readily negotiated and eased each   side believes the Cold War can end only when the  other side changes fundamentally or collapses   forth both sides see any agreement between the two  as only tactical and temporary and five the Cold   War was global in scope now as I say this best  fits the worst period of the old Cold War when   Stalin was the Soviet leader in the late 40s and  early 50s I don't think it quite fits some of the   later periods like the time when for example Nixon  and Brezhnev worked out day taunt although some of   the enemies of d'etat thought it still applied  and hence they rejected date on and didn't take   it seriously but what about the new Cold War how  does it compare well I can see certain ways in   which it's safer and better I can see other ways  in which is more dangerous I think it's safer and   better because it's no longer global the main  competition is in Europe and the Middle East on   Korea we're actually pretty close to the Russians  in our view it's not in Vietnam so it's not global   the way it used to be and in another sense it's  not nearly as ideological at least ideological in   the sense of the old marxist-leninist ideology  which no longer carries much weight in Russia   except for old hardline communists true Putin  has been developing a new ideology or rather   redeveloping an even older ideology which features  things like nationalist patriotism Orthodox   religion and social conservatism but I don't think  it's quite as dangerous as the old one which had   as a primary axiom that the United States or the  capitalist West in general was inevitably out to   destroy communism and there could never be lasting  coexistence with the West well how might the new   Cold War be more dangerous well there might be  some people in this audience who can who have an   opinion as to what I'm about to tell you as to  whether it could be true I heard this fourth or   fifth hand from somebody who has connections in  the American security establishment so I can't   vouch for this at all but what he said was that  in the new world of hacking it may become possible   it may have already become possible to hack the  early warning systems of the United States and   of Russia that is the warning systems that tell  each side that missiles launched by the other   are winging their way toward your side and will  arrive in 15 minutes and that then gives you 5 or   10 minutes to decide whether to press the button  in response and thereby liftoff the missiles that   the incoming missiles would otherwise destroy if  yours hadn't been launched now if this is true   and I don't know whether it's true this would  be a terribly terribly dangerous possibility   but as I say I have no idea whether it's true  there's one more wrinkle which makes it even   more dangerous same source which is to say not  necessarily reliable but he told me that among   the so the Russian technologists the IT people  who were capable of this kind of thing okay   if it's possible at all there are some a Muslim  background who have disappeared either perhaps   kidnapped or co-opted by Isis which is working  on this very scenario what else might make the   situation more dangerous well I think it's the  case Jane and I have noticed this that Russians   these days are more anti-American than they used  to be in Soviet times in Soviet times they often   reacted to the repression coming down on their  necks by idealizing the West and the United States   in particular which the regime portrayed as their  mortal enemy and if the regime said we were their   mortal enemy then we must be a pretty good place  but these days as a result of Putin's propaganda   and what's been going on in the world Russians  seem to be more anti-American they used to be   some of the more anti certain American leaders but  now you sense more anti Americanism in general our   Americans more anti-Russian I don't know and  here again you may have a better idea than I   if you have talked with your fellow Americans  about Russia as to whether you encounter this   kind of anger okay I said I'd mentioned three  basic patterns of the new Cold War one is that   both sides or at least that's my view of it both sides  are at fault I could make the case although far   from every historian agrees with it that when  the old Cold War began there was more fault on   the Soviet side because it was led by Stalin  with all of his paranoia he killed millions of   his own people he could never bring himself as  a person to trust the West whereas some of the   American leaders like Roosevelt and Truman for  a while whatever else they did did trust Russia   and did trust even Stalin but this time I think  it's quite clear at least to me that both sides   are at fault second it's interesting to see the  way the balance of power between the two sides   or rather the imbalance of power has Agra and  fueled the conflict what do I mean by that well   in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia  succeeded it Russia was as weak as it had been in   a long long time the United States was stronger  than ever it was the only superpower left in the   world Russia was not a superpower anymore and  given that imbalance of power the United States   well we could talk about this if we want to was  in some ways drunk with its own superiority in   power and that may explain some of the things that  we did later that many people regret on the other   hand Russia was so weak that it had to submit  and even in those years when Boris Yeltsin who   succeeded Gorbachev was very angry with what the  United States was doing he eventually swallowed it   because he had he felt no choice later under Putin  Russia has been rebuilt he's rebuilt the state   he's rebuilt the economy he's rebuilt the military  and he's begun to throw Russia's weight around in   the world in places like Ukraine and even in Syria  and it's not surprising that now we are alarmed by   that change from an imbalance of power in our  favor to a closer something closer to a balance   of power the third general pattern which has been  involved in these years has to do with what are   called in diplomacy at diplomatic history spheres  of influence once upon a time the East European   countries were Soviet satellites and places like  the Baltic States and Ukraine and Georgia where as   you know constituent republics of the Soviet Union  parts of the Soviet Union taken together this was   the Soviet Union's external Empire in Eastern  Europe and internal Empire within the Soviet   Union itself with the collapse of the Soviet Union  Russia lost Eastern Europe Soviet Union lost it   before Russia did and I do not think from what I  can tell Russia and Putin are trying to conquer   it again that would just be too difficult and  dangerous for them as well as the rest of the   world but they do not like the idea of Eastern  Europe's countries becoming members of NATO I'll   talk about that more in a minute as for the former  Soviet republics the Baltics Ukraine Georgia and   the others so far they don't seem to want to  increase incorporate them but they seem to want   to dominate them at least when it comes to things  like whether or not Ukraine should even think of   joining NATO itself now naturally enough the East  Europeans and the former Soviet republics like the   Ukraine are alarmed and fearful they don't want to  let Russia continue to dictate to them or to start   to dictate to them where as equally naturally  enough the West the United States in particular   think that Eastern Europe and the former Soviet  republics have a right to determine their own   destiny especially when and this is not always the  case they are plausibly democracies in which what   the leaders say reflects what the people want the  people who have elected them this however puts us   in a tricky position because what shall we do  shall we try to avoid antagonizing the Russians   who don't want us to push NATO for example expand  it if we do so wouldn't we be betraying again   some of the East Europeans who had been betrayed  before by the West in 1938 or 1945 or 1948 this   is a serious question and I don't think there's  a easy answer although perhaps other people do   okay finally the stages through which the new Cold  War has evolved I've already talked about how well   Gorbachev got along with Reagan and Bush but in  retrospect you can see that as early as 1990 and   1991 the seeds of a future conflict even the Cold  War were planted let me try to explain Gorbachev   acquiesced in East Europe's breaking away in  1989 from communism Poland Hungary Czechoslovakia   Romania Gorbachev acquiesced in 1990 in German  reunification Gorbachev acquiesced also in 1990   in reunified Germany's remaining or becoming  a member of NATO and when he did these three   things the West were shocked I've talked to some  of the people including Secretary of State Baker   I correspond with President Bush HW Bush I talked  to one of the key people in the national security   staff Robert black will who said we kept waiting  for Gorbachev not to acquiesce we kept waiting for   example for him to say the only condition under  which you can have the reunification of Germany   is if you agree that a Ruth reunified Germany  may not be part of NATO but it never happened   now the whole question of why Gorbachev did this  is elaborated or at least I attempt to answer it   in this book but one of the main components of  that answered is that Gorbachev imagined a new   world order and a new European order he imagined  what he often talked about and called a European   common home common home of Europe that was often  dismissed as a kind of propaganda but he really   believed it what he imagined was that East and  West divisions in Europe would be gone that NATO   and the Warsaw Pact would first shift from being  military alliances to political organizations   and then dissolve that a new European security  architecture would replace them based on what   was called CSCE the conference of Security  and Cooperation in Europe and it sounded at   the time if you look at what Bush was saying and  Baker was saying as if we were open to this kind   of outcome there's even one famous moment which  has been quoted very often in which on September   February 10th, 1990 maker told Gorbachev that if  he agreed to Germany's joining NATO that NATO's   military jurisdiction would not expand one  inch to the east well as I will recount in   a minute it's expanded hundreds and thousands  of miles Bush and the Western or the rest of   Western leaders pocketed Gorbachev acquiescence  kept NATO and even started to expand it at that   time in the sense that East Germany which hadn't  been part of NATO was now part of Germany which   was in turn part of NATO let's turn next to the  relationship between Clinton and Yeltsin a Clinton   often referred to Yeltsin as in a southern accent  that I can't duplicate as ole Boris oal ' Boris   now Yeltsin was a very difficult person he was  boisterous he was boastful he was super-sensitive   and according to at least some sources well not  according to some sources we know he was a hard   drinker but some sources say that at least on  one occasion he was found outside the White   House in Washington during one of his visits in  his underwear looking for a place to have a pizza Yeltsin reminds me a little bit of Khrushchev  whose biography I wrote but where is Kennedy John   F Kennedy let himself be in my view intimidated  by Khrushchev especially at the Vienna summit of   1961 Clinton took Yeltsin in stride rolling with  the punches and laughing off Yeltsin successes   in which he recognized I believe parallels  to his own gigantic appetites but although   they got along substantively the US was doing  things which irritated Yeltsin and yet which   he as I said earlier swallowed Clinton talked big  about giving a lot of money to help Russia build   democracy and capitalism but he gave a lot less  money than he had talked about furthermore the   United States offered a lot of aid it sent  over economists and others to help Russians   figure out how to create a stock market and run  a market economy key to that advice was a great   emphasis on privatization although that was not  the only part of the advice and now Russians or   once that the 90s turned sour as it did raging  inflation high unemployment the Russians began   to attribute that to the advice they got not just  a consequence of that advice but as the intention   of advice to mess up their system not all of them  did that and furthermore, it's not an entirely fair   accusation at all because after all it was the  Russians who accepted the advice and implemented   NATO expansion in the Clinton years 1997 the Czech  Republic Poland and Hungary all accepted into NATO   and here's how one of the great Russian experts  of the United States in our history George Kennan responded to that process I think it is the  beginning he wrote of a new Cold War there was no   reason for that whatsoever no one was threatening  anybody else our differences in the Cold War  were with the Soviet communist regime and  now we are turning our backs on the very people   who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in  history to remove that soviet regime of course   there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia  and then the nato expanders will say that we   always told you that that is how the russians  are but that is just wrong what kenan is in   effect saying is that this was a self-fulfilling  prophecy to warn of the russians to expand NATO   to protect against the Russians and as a result of  the expansion to create or at least to aggravate   the Russian threat to us moreover there was  the Yugoslav war which we remember all too well   in which the United States depicted with great  justification Serbia a Slavic cousin of Russia   as the main villain you may remember that at one  point in the battle over Kosovo we actually went   so far as to bomb Belgrade at great length and  with serious results as a result of this a kind   of Russian narrative began to build that the  United States had destroyed the Soviet Union   or at least tried to that it had kept Russia  down it had treated it like a defeated power   now again this narrative is not entirely true Bush  number one George HW Bush in 1991 went to Kiev and   with the Soviet Union about to collapse warned  the Ukrainians who were tea to the collapse of   the Soviet Union not to push too far telling them  that a kind of variant nationalism which some of   the Ukrainians were practicing not all what would  be worse than a democratic Soviet Union of which   Ukraine would and apart another thing that the the  Soviet Union did was Russia I'm sorry post-soviet   Russia they created many of their own excesses  they created their own oligarchs they deepened   their own Ailey quality they messed up their  own democracy witnessed the fact that in 1993   challenged by a hard-line Parliament Boris Yeltsin  in order to save democracy in Russia bombarded the   Parliament brought up the tanks and tried to blow  up the Parliament and one other thing that Russia   didn't do over the years which is very important  I think this goes back to the issue of the spheres   of influence Russia hardly tried or if it tried  it certainly didn't succeed in soothing the fears   of the East Europeans or of the former Soviet  republics and so if the East Europeans on the   former Soviet republics continue to fear Russia  and seek Western protection that at least is in   part because the Russians didn't do a very good  job of trying to make peace with their former   neighbors and former republics now we get to Putin  with Bush and Obama in the beginning Putin took   over in 1999 as acting president and in 2000 as  elected president and in the beginning according   to his colleagues in the Russian government and  according also to the NATO secretary-general Lord   George Robertson Putin wanted to get along this is  what one of Putin's associates said Putin believed   in relations with the West could and should  be improved so that we could be partners he   considered that the problem was that they the West  did not understand us or our difficulties that we   were facing we needed to explain our situation  discuss it with them and they would help us and   it would lead to a different relationship and  here's what he told Lord Robertson he said he   believed I'm quoting that Russia should be part  of Western Europe that it was Russia's destiny   to be so that he wanted to work toward that  even though not everyone agreed with him the   legacy of Kosovo was still there but he thought  it was a distraction we would work together and   cooperate but of course that didn't happen and  here is Putin himself speaking about that time   saying he was prepared to discuss more profound  integration with NATO provided that Russia was   regarded as an equal partner asked if he could  ever join NATO if Russia could ever join NATO he   replied I don't see why not I would not rule  out that possibility now you may think Putin   is a liar and was lying back then but I'm not  entirely convinced at least back then because   if you look at 911 and the world's reaction to it  you will recall that Putin was the first man to   call President Bush and that he offered anything  we can do to help we are with you he said and he   offered access to Afghanistan to American forces  overflying Russia and overflying the Central Asian   republics where Russia still had such influence  furthermore there was very good personal chemistry   between Bush and Putin you may recall that Bush  invited Putin to the Crawford ranch they had 20   summit meetings of various kinds but meanwhile  NATO expansion in 2002 NATO expanded to include   Romania Bulgaria Slovenia Slovakia and the former  Baltic republics furthermore we don't need to   talk about the Iraq war or maybe we do but the  Russians didn't like the fact that we started it   without their permission if that is without the  permission of the UN Security Council then there   were what are known as the color revolutions in  Ukraine and Georgia in 2004 in which the United   States obviously favored the overthrow of regimes  more friendly to Russia by night by 2007 Putin was   very angry but the worst was yet to come because  in 2008 they promised eventually to make members   of Ukraine and Georgia well that hasn't happened  but you can imagine the Russian reaction Putin was   enraged but from 2008 to 2012 he stepped aside  and was replaced by Dmitry Medvedev so as to   observe the Russian Constitution which barred  more than two consecutive presidential terms   Medvedev responded positively to Obama's reset  probably to positively in Putin's view because   for example made Vaidya that stained in the  United Nations when the United Nations approved   a resolution authorizing the use of force to  create a no-fly zone in Libya but we went beyond   that and together with our allies we got rid of  Qaddafi which was not authorized by the resolution   well Putin returned in 2012 for his third term  but not consecutive by this point he had been   cracking down on civil society on the Free Press  and in 2011 in 2012 there were demonstrations   in Moscow involving tens of thousands of people  protesting against the way Putin had rigged the   election not entirely but in part and that seems  to have scared him convinced him that the color   revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia could spread  to Russia and then in 2014 the color revolution   returned you remember in Ukraine where kook  proves buddy President Yanukovych was ousted   and during those days in the Maidan in Kiev the  revolution there was cheered on by not only the   German Foreign Minister but by Americans like  Senator McCain who went there and the Assistant   Secretary of State for European affairs in  the State Department Victoria Nuland who was   actually handing out bread and food to the those  engaging in the uprising that brings us to the   day Newmont at least so far which is very recent  Brown Russia and X's the Crimea Russia intervenes   in East Ukraine to support the separatists and  Putin apparently no longer sees if he ever did   Russia as eventually becoming part of the West  rather he has decided that Russia will lead or   attempt to lead the anti Western powers wherever  they may be around the world and so we have a new   cold war at the moment although it's not total  in the sense that we're still in agreement about   limiting Iran's nuclear weapons anyway this is  the context this is the background this is the   evolution leading up to troop Trump and Putin will  jump still try to ease this new Cold War if he   does will Putin meet him halfway if he does will  he mean what he says or will it be some kind of   trick I was going to talk a little bit about Putin  and Trump I don't think I have to talk about Trump   we've all been witnesses to what's been going on  I will just read very quickly two excerpts from   Rutan's Putin's autobiography it's a it's not so  much all written by him it's based on interviews   with him by Russian journalists and it includes  some of his own words and you get a sense of him   from these two quotes one he's talking about the  impoverished run-down apartment house he lived in   in Leningrad there on that stair landing outside  of his apartment I got a quick and lasting lesson   in the meaning of the word cornered there were  hordes of rats in the front entryway my friends   and I used to chase them around with sticks once  I spotted a huge rat and pursued it down the hall   until it drove me into a corner it had nowhere to  run suddenly it lashed around and threw itself at   me I was surprised and frightened now the rat was  chasing me I jumped it jumped across the landing   and down the stairs luckily I was a little faster  to slam the door shut on its nose and this is a   quote from Putin's elementary school teacher she  said to these reporters I think Volodya that's   Vladimir Putin's russian nickname is a good person  but he never forgives people who betray him or are   mean to him in any case that's what I think now  my final overarching question that I'd like to end   with if as if I'm right that many of the things  the United States has done over these years has   alienated and antagonize Russia and Putin let's  play a game of imagining that the United States   doesn't do that let's imagine that NATO does not  expand that the Iraq war does not occur that the   Libyan UN resolution is not violated and that we  don't cheer on the color revolutions in Ukraine   and Georgia would that mean that Russia would  be getting along with us now much better or   would someone like Putin still find reason to be  aggrieved is there in other words something about   Russia and its penchant for authoritarianism  and anti Western ISM that would lead it to   be aggrieved almost no matter what we did and  on the other side is there something about us   something about us which leads us to do what  we do that antagonize us and alienates Russia   and that it may be a fantasy to imagine that  we could stop doing that anyway I'm going to   stop there I hope I've left time for questions  comments counter-arguments whatever you like Miriam is it Miriam has a microphone  which she's going to try to bring around I'll stay up here unless I can hear which is quite  possible since I'm hard of hearing first of all   thank you for your thoughtful discourse one of  the things that has been I think a problem for   Putin that for the Russians in general has been  the fluctuating energy market oil natural gas   and particularly with the shift in Europe toward  solar wind and other non non carbon-based energy   sources that puts a threat to some of Russia's  economic stability they certainly found their   ways to make money in all kinds of other ways  but one of the concerns that I have is that   that could actually make Putin more desperate  as he tries to shore up his financial base and   to keep key power by keeping the other oligarchs  happy yes this is quite true I mean it's already   happened as a result of the fall a drastic fall  in oil and gas prices and the sanctions that the   West laid on after the annexation of Crimea  and the intervention in Ukraine that's part   of the picture that has made Putin so upset  and angry I just want to add one other thing   too to that I left out I added in my notes the  hacking itself is almost certainly in Putin's   eyes equal to what he sees as our attempts  to interfere in Russian elections what does   he have in mind I don't think we hacked their  elections I don't know what we did do though   was send over lots of specialists in democracy  the National Republican and Democratic parties   in this country each has an International  Institute which sent over people to help   teach the Russians how to campaign how to run an  election we did this in great numbers along with   other NGOs and Putin obviously believes that this  was interfering in their internal affairs that's   one of the reasons why he has now banished or  actually what he did very ominous was he decided   that to rule or he got the Parliament to rule  but any Russian non-governmental organization   that collects that that receives money from  a foreign country must declare itself to be   a foreign agent and what's so ominous about that  is that that phrase foreign agent was used in the   1930s by Stalin and others to designate those  whose time on earth was not going to be very   long so that's a bit of a roundabout answer but  I think it takes off from your your question yes there seems to be a current theory that some of  the hacking was in response to a sense of personal   animus on the part of Putin and Hillary Clinton  when she served as Secretary of State do you   find any credibility in that theory again I speak  without direct evidence but it certainly has the   ring of truth to it we know that Hillary Clinton  condemned the very elections that thousands of   Russians demonstrated against to protest and Putin  thereafter said that she was behind that those   demonstrations that was probably a little bit of  exaggeration we know she wasn't that hundreds of   thousands of Russians didn't come out because she  said the elections were falsified in part they   came out because their neighbors and friends could  see it happening but it has the ring of truth   because well partly because of what the elementary  school teacher said you know he doesn't like that   kind of behavior it's a kind of betrayal and it's  a short step given the practices of the Russian   secret police from whose organization he emerged  to take the actions that they took and they could   be they could have larger political purposes but  they could also have that personal animus toward   her I think I've been reading today's paper or  reading online that the latest peep the latest   leaks which have been coming out from supposedly  well-informed sources say that our intelligence   people concluded that the hacking that it  went on was both pro Trump and anti Hillary yes my recollection which is a little fuzzy  and made me incorrect is that George F Kenan   is that George F Kenan was not only against  expansion of NATO but he was against NATO   from the very outset so NATO clearly any from your  hypothetical also was a big factor in each of the   Cold War's if we're now in a second Cold War do  you think a possible deal making for elimination   or at least cooling of the Cold War would be some  kind of deal involving a reduction not if not it   is not a dismantling but a reduction in NATO  in some way and the role of the u.s. in NATO   you know I I didn't mean to say that expanding  NATO was totally wrong it's it's kind of it's   not that hard to understand the logic of people  like Bush at the time 1990-91 and later Clinton   those who expanded it after all NATO was a going  concern it had worked what was the alternative   was the alternative a somehow an all pan European  Organization including everybody including Russia   which would have been bigger than anybody and  potentially disruptive was the alternative to   say limit the expansion of NATO to the Czech  Republic Poland and Hungary well if you did   that that's like saying those are the ones we'll  protect but these other guys we won't that's an   invitation to Russia at some point to make trouble  the one thing I feel very strongly about was that   the invitation to Ukraine and Georgia was a big  mistake I mean Baltics well we could argue about   that but Ukraine was the biggest non Russian part  of the Russian Empire many of the Russians won't   even admit that Ukraine is a separate country  they say it and Russia go back to Kiev in ruse   which was the founder of both but and I know that  when the National Security Council under george   w bush considered the expansion of NATO into  Ukraine and Georgia condi rice the Secretary   of State is supposed to have presented the pros  and cons but not taken the position I suspect   Dick Cheney without knowing it I suspect that  he did take a position that was bring him on   bring him in and Bush is quoted as saying well  if they ask Ukraine and Georgia I can't say no   so this whole question of which ones you accept if  any what was the alternative to accepting none of   them is kind of complicated except I think for  Ukraine and Georgia which was a step too far   the kind of deal that I imagined alluded to at  the beginning which I can imagine now probably   would not begin with NATO what I imagine in here  if anybody in the audience is from the government   or been in the government and no you may very  well know more than I do but what I imagine is   that the US and the West could de facto accept  the annexation of Crimea because they're not   going to give it back and if they're not going  to give it back then we continue making a stink   about it and imposing sanctions as a result  of it it just makes things worse and we could   conceivably begin to lift some of the sanctions  if the Russians pulled out of Ukraine and pull   back from the borders of the Baltic states where  they've been conducting military exercises and   they stopped the dangerous over flights right  up to the edge of NATO countries and one other   thing this is not part of a deal but just part of  what's going on and what could be stopped have you   noticed the way there's practically no America  and congressman or senator who doesn't preface   Putin's name when he or she utters it with the  words murderer and thug well he's not a good man   he's probably even an evil man he killed or his  people have killed a lot of people but you don't   you can't have a relationship with the country in  which you referred to its leader constantly as a   murderer and a thug yes said just a commentary  in 1994 the Budapest memorandum guaranteed to   Ukraine its territorial integrity in exchange  for giving up the third largest nuclear arsenal   in the world United States Great Britain Russia  and Ukraine were parties to this agreement the   guarantee was that the territorial integrity would  remain in 99 2014 this did not happen it was the   takeover of Crimea during a period of weakness in  the transition of government in Ukraine and there   was specific intention by Russian intelligence to  infiltrate the Donbass adequacy of a revolution   that we see today what went wrong what went wrong  why did the United States and Great Britain not   defend the piece of paper that they had been  written on and what would have happened had   Ukraine not given up the third-largest nuclear  arsenal in the world for this piece of paper   that's a very good that's a very good point the  Budapest agreement of 1994 did indeed stipulate   exactly what this gentleman just said this is the  kind of thing that led me at the time they seized   Crimea and moved into Ukraine we have a one of  these events a five college event you know for   students and faculty and I went down the list  I had a speech of Putin's in which he attacked   us for doing this this this this and this and  justified his own actions in that way and I said   I think he's right about many of the things that  he says we did but that's no excuse for action   that tears up one of the fundamental pillars of  the post-world War two international order by   moving across a border but I mean if the only way  to stop it was an actual conflict and you may say   there were other ways to stop then I'm afraid  Russia had a bigger stake than we did in that   area our stake was precisely the one you speak  of and it's a very important stake but there's   Ukraine on their borders there are their troops on  their borders and any war if it ever come to that   they would have been able to escalate and at any  stage well I mean one hesitates to imagine what   goes on in a war between the US and Russia today  but I think there was a kind of discretion that   is the unfortunate sad better part of valor not to  defend what was the correct cause if by defending   it we risked actual conflict and war hello even  though there are protests I'm back here against   Putin in Russia right now I believe that he's very  popular with his own people for the most part and   it looks as though he's going to be the leader  for some long time and I just my question is do   you foresee that you agree with that you foresee  any ways in which that connection that he has with   his people might change therefore you're quite  right that Putin is extremely popular with his own   people his favorability rating is has been as high  as 82 percent compared that to Trump's 36 and in   other words the Russian people generally approve  of what he's doing they began to get uneasy when   the economic situation began to crater but then  he was very clever he's a very shrewd guy and   the annexation of Crimea and the war in Ukraine  and the intervention in Syria all publicized   non-stop in a one-sided way on Russian television  revived his popularity again he's certainly almost   certainly going to run again in 2018 which is  really incredible because when he serves out   a six-year term beginning to 2018 he will have  been he does 24 years the leader of Russia 25 if   you count the acting presidency of 1999 and  that's about as long as Stalin 1929 to 1953 now you one may ask who is likely to replace  him and how one of the things that Putin does   is he cuts off at the knees anybody else  who might become a pretender a contender   one can imagine a peaceful transfer of power  within his own circle in which not Medvedev   because Medvedev has now been discredited  by revelations of corruption but there's a   man who was the secretary the defense minister I  don't know if anybody's heard his name his name   is Sergei shoigu he's not even Russian I think  he's a tough heart but the people one talks to   say that he is the kind of guy put in my trust  with taking over after him one other thing is   that Putin's people say and some Russians  who are not his people find plausible the   argument that given the extremes in Russia and  the irrational 'ti of both extremes Russia may   be more stable under Putin than without him now  they use this as propaganda you know keep us in   power because I'm better than the alternative  but people I know who are not Putin people take   this seriously as a question needing to be  pondered I know we're going over the limit   we're about at the limit but may we continue  for a while anybody who wants to love the sick so in terms of US foreign policy and the  likelihood that Putin house outlast the   next you know two presidents maybe in the US is  there anything more than a tactical strategy you   know tactical thinking versus strategic thinking  that could possibly go on I'm not sure but there   is you know even in the Soviet period when we were  very pessimistic about what could be done and we   assumed that the Soviet Union might last forever  only to be shocked and pleasantly surprised when   it disappeared there were still people who thought  that through exchange programs through exposing   Soviets who lived for a long time behind an  Iron Curtain to the reality of life in the   West we could we could sort of change or affect  the attitudes of people and maybe bring about a   change in the long run at the moment the kind of  anti-americanism that one sees on the part of a   lot of Russians offers less opportunity for that  kind of approach I think the hope is if you if you   find if you if you look forward to a day without  Putin when the country continues or goes back to   building the democracy that Gorbachev started  the hope is that the middle class is expanding   it's now estimated that about 25 percent of the  Russian population is living pretty darn well not   very well but well and they want to travel Putin  is shrewd he allows them to travel they want to   read books he allows them to read books he even  allows at least one newspaper which happens to   be co-owned by Gorbachev and an oligarch called  Malaya Gazeta which does tell the truth and he   allows one radio station called echo Moskvy which  tells it like it is so he's shrewd in those ways   but I guess the hope would be that this burgeoning  middle class which wants really unrig elections as   they showed when they went out to protest will get  bigger and bigger at the moment they're primarily   in Moscow and Petersburg but there's some some  of them in other big cities in the long run they   may bring about change but I think if and when  they do they will bring it about themselves and   it's not we who will do it for them because we're  probably no better equipped to build a democratic   nation in Russia than we were in Iraq what may  be a naive reading of things and I'd hope that   you point that out I'd like to tease two threads  from what you've been talking about and and see   how they relate one is the idea that's a popular  idea that there's some continuity in the character   of the Russian state over the decades that from  the Czarist to the Communists to Putin you've   got you know thorat arianism you've got the  relation of the other cities and Providence to   Moscow you've got the conceit control of religion  depending on what the state religion is so that's   one thread is the idea that they just changed the  patches combined with the asymmetry of tools used   between the US and Russia to achieve their goals  that is the Russians were of course famous for   the great game in Afghanistan with Britain and  then popularly and I think particularly in the   book legacy of ashes about the CIA you know  they were much better at the spy game than   we were they managed to put spies among us and  we generally when we tried to do that they got   rolled up and turned immediately however you know  the US has an economic power and optimistic power   sort of a a brash story it tells so my question  is given these two threads the asymmetric tools   that each country has and the perception of  Russia's order being constant if you were to   wipe away all this history and start from year  one and let each country be itself so to speak   would they inevitably still come into conflict  in the areas where they touch just because of   the very separate tools and characters available  to the respective states so you you want to wipe   away the history which makes Russia what it is  between the two if all the bad blood will race   tomorrow yes but you still have the country being  where they are and still had their perspective in   traffic rules when they invariably come back into  conflicts in the same way that's sort of what I   was asking at the end of my talk when I said let's  imagine that the United States doesn't do any of   the things that drive Putin crazy would Russia  under him or somebody like him nonetheless because   of its history because of its tension its tendency  toward authoritarianism and anti Western ISM would   it nonetheless feel aggrieved and arrival and we'd  end up in in trouble and I don't really know the   answer I think that is in a way the big question  basic on what you know Russian tourists yeah we   were in this country around the world oh well you  care to say a word about Russian tourists no will so a light dare to talk more about that later  yes I'd like to ask you to speculate assume   for the moment that evidences comes forward  establishing without a doubt that the russians   hacked the election and change the outcome of  the election let's assume for the moment that   trump is no longer president and pence  is and that there's strong anti Russian   attitude developing in the United States how  would the Russians react to the sir how would   Putin react to such an course of events a  lot of speculation there would be nice if   he felt guilty as if he had contributed to an  outcome that he doesn't like probably wouldn't   happen I think from their point of view pence  will be much more difficult than Trump might   have been if Trump fell free to do what he  wanted to do which he mode no longer may no   longer feel free to do I guess that's that's  my reaction amplify that in what in what way generalities okay well that we have to go back  to the question how can you ask your question   again and I'll try to be more specific yeah I was  responding to you write an outcome in which number   one the facts are established without question you  know that the Russians had election and there is   a demon outcry of anger toward the Russians and  at the same time hence replaces reprise I think   that's going to be worse the situation to be worse  than it is now and it had hardly the Russians oh   how will they react to this well I think they will  probably continue with business as usual that is   they won't I think they hope for some kind of deal  with Trump of the kind that I began to imagine I   think they won't get that deal from pence so they  will be back in in dealing with a situation where   they don't see much give it any in our position  and we don't see much in theirs I think we will   have a kind of status quo sort of frozen Cold War  which is redundant I realize between the two of us   until the leadership changes again with a Democrat  coming in now will a Democrat be more likely to   make a deal with the Russians probably not so  I mean I guess what I'm saying is that if it's   established that they did the hacking and Punk'd  and Trump is driven out of power for this for the   foreseeable future any Republican and any Democrat  will be reluctant to try to make the concessions   which might ease the new Cold War and if that's  the case it will be fought in the way it's been   thought until maybe Putin is gone but then it  depends on who replaces him I'd like to go back   before that happens because it hasn't happened  and we don't know how it won't it's good so huh   if Trump has enough time to do something that  he wants to do visa V Russia what will that be   I appreciate that you're talking what you talked  about was the dorms in Russian thought which were   very helpful to me without to up without Trump  but a lot of things that Trump wants to do would   not drive the Russians crazy well Trump obviously  wants trade with the Russians he wants cooperation   against terrorism he seems to think that there  are ways in which we could cooperate much more   than we have although in a place like Syria that  hasn't happened yet although despite the efforts   of John Kerry and perhaps Lavrov the Russian  Foreign Minister I well I already mentioned   what I imagine I imagine Trump might say let's  we're not going to get Crimea back so let's stop   giving them a hard time about that and we'd like  them to get out of Ukraine so let's offer to lift   sanctions gradually as they leave Ukraine that's  what I imagine a deal like that plus an effort   to cooperate against terrorism plus an expansion  of trade and do you have something else in mind   just don't so I wanted to make sure I had it all  that's maybe two one more or at most two yeah   thinking about this idea of deal on I've sort of  thought of this before well one idea is thinking   is maybe you could call for an internationally  monitored referendum in Crimea so that people   can actually vote themselves whether they want  to be in Russia and say okay if they want to be   in Russia okay fine and then also on Ukraine  part you could say okay once you have a crane   that's sort of shorn of such territorial ethnic  disputes with Russia then that would actually be   a much stronger NATO candidate and you could you  could bring Ukraine into NATO and be sort of a   move counter move response that you could say to  put it okay well okay you get Crimea but you know   we're going to have a response to this if this is  the way you're going to play we're going to have a   certain security architecture here to sort of you  know stand against further moves like this I like   the idea of an international reference referendum  in Crimea although I am pretty sure it would vote   to stay in Russia well that's the whole young  yeah it would right but as for a Ukraine free   of Russian semi occupation joining NATO I don't  think Russia is going to allow that anyway know   how that's why they're there I think you're  more likely to get the Russians to move out   if you lead them to understand either explicitly  or implicitly that we will not favor Ukrainian   membership in NATO which brings us back to the  to that issue I described at the beginning where   if they want to join it and their people want to  join it who are we to say they can't because the   Russians won't like that that sounds terrible  but it may be that for the sake of peace in   that region that's what we should do I should  mention that Robert Gates the former Secretary   of Defense and head of the CIA was here last  year and gave a talk and Biddy Martin had a   dinner which Jane and I were fortunate enough to  be invited to and I asked him about this and he   said he said essentially that let's let's let's  agree that Ukraine will not join NATO and then   the Russians might be willing to get out even  if they did even if that happened if you crane   were free to be what it wants to be either the  Russians wouldn't like it and if Ukraine were   proved better able and it has been so far it's  not been very successful so far in building a   functioning democracy and an economy that works  then the Russians would feel threatened that that   would promote a change in Russia which at least  Putin doesn't want that is a color revolution so   I could imagine Putin I suppose even refusing to  get out if he were assured that Ukraine wouldn't   be a member of NATO but once again imagine that  assurance like you Volta you know it sounds   like a spheres of influence deal between Stalin  Churchill where we give 50% control of Greece   to them and 70 percent of Romania that kind of  stuff makes a lot of sense but it doesn't work   very well in the world a lot of people don't  like it rightly so let's see what should we do guess the question is isn't the next step for  NATO Moldavia actually it's now cold I think   Moldova but it's the same place and well  one reason it can't happen is that under   the rules of NATO admission of new members  there has to be stability and no territory   which is the subject of dispute but it is  in Moldavia the Russian troops occupy what's   called Transnistria that's by the way one reason  why the Russians may stay in Ukraine because as   long as Ukraine's eastern region is up for  dispute then according to NATO's own rules   it can't admit Ukraine and that's one reason  why the Russians are in Georgia in the areas   of Abkhazia and South Ossetia where they have  occupation forces because as long as that's the   case under NATO's whole own rules they can't be  admitted to NATO the phrase for this the cliche   is these are frozen conflicts which have the  effect of giving Russia the outcome it wants you

Channel: AmherstCollege

Views: 38,390

Rating: 4.3789473 out of 5

Keywords: amherst college, amherst, college, massachusetts, liberal arts, academia, student, higher education, campus, academic, new england, school, undergraduate, public affairs

Id: PRHMxHcEHmA

Length: 74min 42sec (4482 seconds)

Published: Tue Jun 06 2017