- Good afternoon, everybody
and welcome to today's events. My name is Douglas Rogers, I teach in the Anthropology Department, and I'm the Faculty
Director of the program in Russian East European
and Eurasian studies. Today is a special event not
just because of our guest, who's one of the most well
known, most distinguished and most fascinating
journalists and broadcasters in the past 50 years,
anywhere in the world, but because in a much
smaller and more modest way, this is the first time that words program in Russian East European
and Eurasian studies are being uttered in public at Yale. Applause is appropriate.
(audience applauding) Our program dates from July 1st, 2018. And we think that the
interest that we're carrying around campus and full
auditoriums like today are good evidence of expanding
interest in the study of this part of the world. So thank you for coming. Look at our website,
get on our newsletter, we hope to bring you many
more events like this. I want to thank Macmillan Center, the council in European studies, for helping us with this event also, and especially the pointer
fellowship in journalism, and the Office of Public
Affairs and communication. Eileen O'Connor is somewhere here. Thank you very much for your
partnership in this event and many other events
we've had in the past and hope to have in the future. The plan for today is
that I will turn things over to Constantine Muravnik,
who I'm also very grateful to for suggesting this program
and for doing a lot of the work to make it happen. He'll introduce our guest, who will then speak for a little while, followed by sort of open question answer and discussion period. So without further ado, Constantine. (audience applauding) - It is my distinct honor to welcome Vladimir Pozner to Yale. Mr. Pozner needs an
introduction only for those who are too young to remember
the '80s and the '90s in this country when he regularly appeared on Ted Koppel's Nightline
and The Phil Donahue Show and then co hosted the
Pozner/Donahue show on CNBC. At that time, he once visited Yale, so it's not a welcome but a welcome back. Mr. Pozner may also need
an introduction to those who are detached from contemporary Russia, where he is omnipresent in the media. For the past 10 years, he has
hosted a weekly show, Pozner, where he interviews various
national and world leaders from all walks of life;
Gorbachev, Sekulow, Gaidar, Shoigu, Ted Turner and Vekselberg, Hillary Clinton and Sting, Michael McFaul and Ksenia
Sobchak, among many others had a chance to face Mr.
Pozner's thoughtful scrutiny and be judged by millions
of Russian viewers. Mr. Pozner's opinions on
a wide range of questions from politics to soccer,
from history to astronomy, and arts quickly go viral. They have become a fact of
Russian life to such an extent that he has been termed,
have seriously, half ingest, the spiritual leader of the
nation and its moral compass. This is despite the fact
that Mr. Pozner is Russian just as much as he is
an American or French. He was born in France and
christened in Notre Dame, grew up in the U.S. and came to Russia only at the age of 19. Perhaps this cosmopolitan
aspect of his biography is what endears him to Russian public tire like any other public
of ideological agendas. Perhaps, this ability to
be simultaneously Russian and American and European
attunes Mr. Pozner to the subtleties of
different perspectives, and brings him one step
closer to the much desired and no less appreciated
objectivity and truth. Especially now, when the
gaps separating governments and nations are only widening. And one side increasingly
refuses to consider the views of the other. In his more than five decades
in the field of journalism, Mr. Pozner has done his share of partisanship and propaganda. However, this changed in the '80s when he pioneered a project of so called space bridges,
or tele bridges that connect with Russian and American audiences. Moscow viewers named Kim TV
journalist number one in 1989. And this high mark of recognition has never decreased ever since. In 1989, and in from 1994 to 2008, Mr. Pozner headed the
Russian television Academy. In 1997, he founded the School
for Television Excellence, a platform for education and
promotion of young journalists. He's written several books and made a number of
documentary miniseries about different countries,
their cultures and people. These films brought the
U.S., France, Italy, Germany, England, Israel and Spain closer to millions of Russian people. It is my hope that this
conversation with Mr. Pozner at Yale will also achieve what
he has been so good at. That it will bring
Russian views and opinions a little closer to our
students and colleagues, and will maintain what
we all need now the most, a dialogue, based on mutual
understanding and respect. So please join me in
welcoming Vladimir Pozner. (audience applauding) - Thank you very much. Quite an introduction. I'd like to say a couple
of words about who I am and what I am not withstanding
what we just heard. It's important that you understand that I don't represent
anybody or anything, any organization,
political, social, whatever. I represent myself. I am an independent journalist. And that's an animal that
is disappearing in Russia and not only in Russia. I think, for me, it's
important that I say that and I hope I'm not going to speak long because I was told we would
have a conversation afterwards. And I think that might be the
most interesting part of it because you have questions or views that you might wanna share with me, and I can't guess them in advance. But there are certain
things I'd like to say before we have that conversation. I'd like to say, first
of all, that we are, at an extremely dangerous moment today. Never have the relations between Russia and the United States
with the Soviet Union, not what it was before,
been at this level. During the worst times of the Cold War, when I was living in the Soviet Union, and I remember all that very, very well. Russians were anti White
House, anti Wall Street, but not anti American,
in their vast majority. In fact, there was a
kind of a warm feeling these are the Americans. Today that's different. Today it's anti American
at the grassroots level. And there's a reason for it. Another thing that is, to me scary is that neither side seems to be afraid of nuclear weapons. 30 years ago, those of
you who are of my age certainly remember an American
movie called "The Day After," which is about what happens
to you and to your country after a nuclear strike. There was fear of these weapons as there was in the Soviet
Union, there was a realization that these weapons can and if
used will destroy our country. Today, there's a feeling
when you talk to people, it's as if there are no nuclear weapons. It really doesn't seem to
play a role in how we act. And the danger of a not a
deliberate nuclear exchange, but an accidental one has
grown because the level of mistrust between the two
countries has grown as well. There have been several times in the past when computers warned of a nuclear attack. But it never got to the real thing because people took the
time to really check it out. Now, they didn't have a long time. If an ICBM is launched from Russia, it will take about 10 minutes
for it to hit the U.S. So you know, and vice versa obviously. So you don't have a long
time but you do have some. But my feeling is that if today those same computers malfunction
and it's on either side, that an attack has been launched, the response would be immediate. Because the feeling is that
this is what's going to happen. Not that long ago, we were all
very optimistic, weren't we? Gorbachev, Gorby, Gorby,
Russians, we're gonna be friends, we're gonna be... And in such a really short period of time, how did this happen? Why are we at the point that we are today? And I'm not saying who's to blame, because that's not a productive
way of looking at things. But we should try to understand
exactly what did happen. The Soviet Union once Gorbachev took over, didn't really last very long. He came to power in March of 1985. And by December 1991, there
was no more Soviet Union. Some people say, it
collapsed, didn't collapse. In a place called the Belavezha, which is a kind of a
forest, three presidents, the President of Ukraine,
the president of Belarus, and the President of Russia
proper, Mr. Yeltsin decided to part company, decided to
disband the Soviet Union. Now, each had his own reasons, definitely. But if we look at Mr. Yeltsin,
his reasoning was very clear. He was the president of Russia. So he was number two to Gorbachev. Because Gorbachev was
president of the Soviet Union, which Russia was part, the
largest part, but only part. Get rid of the Soviet Union, and there's no president and
you get rid of Gorbachev. That's precisely what he did. So no more Soviet Union. Quickly no more Warsaw Pact,
of course, that is to say, countries that were usually
called Soviet satellites, and part of a military
alliance with the Soviet Union, that Alliance disappeared. And so the United States
had to figure out, how do we deal with this
new entity called Russia? How do we deal with it? There's no more Soviet Union. What is going to be U.S.
policy, vis-a-vis this country. And of course, Yeltsin also had to think about what is going to
be Russia's attitude towards the United States. You may remember that soon
after the Soviet Union cease to exist, and I think
it was February of 1992, Yeltsin came to the United States. And he addressed the
joint session of Congress. And he said, the people of
Russia are offering their hand to the people of the United
States in friendship, to build a better world,
a world without war, a world with our peace. And this was exactly
what the vast majority of Russians wanted. And I would even say that
today, the vast majority of Russians would like to
have, if not a friendship with the United States,
at least a partnership. There's no doubt to my
mind that that's the case. So that was what Yeltsin wanted, and what kind of response did he get? What kind of response did Russia get? Well, the United States
could have picked two ways of treating Russia. One was to say, let's treat
Russia like we did our enemies after World War II, Germany, Italy, and in some of the countries
that were occupied, such as France, or were
not occupied such as UK but were really badly hurt. Let's find a way to see to
it that in those countries, Nazis, fascists do not come back. And communists do not come
to power, and may remind you that in those days, the
Communist Party of France and the Communist Party of
Italy were very, very powerful. And that plan turned out was
called later the Marshall Plan, which was basically a
financial ideas idea to spend a lot of money but in a very precise way to develop certain things, and not to allow others to develop. Now, that could be the policy,
to adopt vis-a-vis Russia. See to it that democracy begins
to develop in that country. And let me say, just for the record, Russia never in its entire thousand years, never had democracy, completely absent. So it wasn't like something
that once upon a time Russians had, and then they
lost, but they knew what it was. They didn't know what it was. So let's spend money on getting
democracy moving in Russia and seeing to it that the
communists do not get back. And that could have been one approach. The other approach was
to say, for 40 years, you held a nuclear bomb over our heads, you lost the Cold War, and
you're gonna pay for it. You're gonna be punished for what you did. And there were people who
supported one view and people who supported the other in this country. Early in 1992 a document was
produced in the United States by a gentleman called Paul Wolfowitz. You may know who he was, he
was under Secretary of Defense of the United States
responsible for policy. The document he produced came to be called the Wealth of its
Doctrine, not officially, but that's the way it was addressed. It later was incorporated in something that was officially
called the Bush Doctrine. That document was leaked
to the New York Times. And so it became public. And what it basically said,
and you can look it up, it's available, you know,
just go to Wolfowitz Doctrine, and you'll find it, what
it basically said was this. The United States should never again, allow any other country to challenge it. The United States must
remain the superior country. And we should tell our allies not to worry about developing their own weapons because we will do that for them. And we must watch out for Russia because we don't know
which way it's going to go. The bear might get up on his
hind legs again, and growl. When that document was
leaked to the New York Times, there was an outcry by the
more liberal, if you will, in America now the word
liberal and conservative has lost the meaning that
it once upon a time had. So when I say liberal, I'm not sure that I'm saying the right word, but at least many people
were upset by this document. Edward Kennedy said that it
was an imperialist document that no country could or should accept. It was quickly as it were removed and rewritten by Mr. Cheney. Not a very liberal man in any sense as far as I can remember. And the Secretary of Defense
in those days, Mr. Powell, but basically it retained
that view, Russia and America must remain, was to be
the only superpower. And basically, that view was
the one that was accepted. It was the one that was accepted. And the attitude towards
Russia was pretty much, you're no longer a superpower. You are a second rate country. Just keep quiet, please. This became evident and
would be evident to you if you follow the policy
of the United States. Now, let's begin with
going back to Gorbachev and his meetings when he
was asked by several people, all of them quite important,
to allow Germany's to reunite and take down the Berlin Wall. And he was told by James Baker, and now this is not many people. I mean, when I would say this, many people say, it's
not true, it's not true. He was told by James
Baker, if this happens, NATO will not move one inch eastward. Well, not long ago, on
December 12th, 2017, the National Defense archives of George Washington University, declassified the minutes of
the baker Gorbachev discussion, and it's there. But it's not only Baker
who said that to him, there was several people there, the German leadership did, Western Germany those days and so on. And finally, I'm not saying,
I don't know whether Gorbachev could have stopped Germany from uniting but the fact of the matter
is that they said yes and took down the Berlin Wall. And NATO stayed put, it
stayed put in those days. It stayed put under Bush Senior, it stayed put during the
first four years of Clinton. But in the next four years
in 1996, approximately, a decision was taken to enlarge NATO, three countries; Poland, the
Czech Republic, and Hungary. Now, I'm gonna read something to you. You know who Thomas Friedman is? New York Times old hand columnist. He, when this happened, this
is already in 19, this is 1998. He called up George Kennan. I don't know if you're all
aware of who George Kennan was, but he was one, in my opinion, perhaps one of the most brilliant minds, political minds of the United States in the second half of the 20th century. The man who devised
the idea of containment of the Soviet Union rather than war against the Soviet Union,
successfully did this. So, you know, a brilliant man who established the very
foundation of U.S. policy, this will be the Soviet Union. So Thomas Friedman called him up. The article he published
in the New York Times, it's called foreign affairs,
now a word from x, why x? Because in 1947, in the
magazine Foreign Affairs Mr. Kennan had published this
article about containment, and he signed it x. So he called him up and he asked him, what did he think about his
decision to enlarge NATO? Let me quote, "I think
this is May 2nd, 1998. "I think it is the
beginning of a new Cold War, "said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. "I think the Russians will
gradually react quite adversely, "and it will affect their policies. "I think it is a tragic mistake. "There was no reason for this whatsoever." That decision, and now
I'm giving you my opinion, is what really started this relation, turning itself, as you might say, that's where it all began. Because the Russian reaction
and specifically this is 1998, So this is Yeltsin, late Yeltsin was, you promised not to do this. So, how do we trust you,
if you make a promise? I would also like you to, perhaps try to solve a little problem. It's a kind of a mathematical. Take the time from when
Gorbachev came to power, March 1985, to 2007, when Putin has been in power for seven
years, that's 22 years. I ask you to find a single thing in foreign or domestic policies
done by the Soviet Union while still existed,
and then Russia proper that might in any way anger, irk, disappoint the United States. Let me answer that for you. Nothing, not one thing during that period. Now, what did Russia
get as a result of that? First, the enlargement of NATO. So that was number one. Then the bombing of Yugoslavia. That was done by NATO and
NATO is after all dependent mostly on the United States. Let's face it, right? The UN did not condone this. So the bombing of Yugoslavia
that's from March 24th,'99, to June 10th, '99. Then Kosovo and recognition of Kosovo although it had been part
of Serbia for centuries, and there were people in Russia who said, you're letting the genie out of the bottle. Because if you do this, then
there are other countries that will do the same. And Russia did the same as the Aphasia to begin with, okay. Yelstin was very angry. He made a speech, he said, and of course, this is very Yeltsin-like. He said, "We're not Haiti,
you can't treat us like Haiti. "Were a great country. "We have a great past and
Russia will come back. "Russia will come back." He was really, really angry. He didn't say the
politically correct thing but he spoke his mind. Then finally 2000, year 2000,
Mr. Putin is not elected, although elected to the presidency. And one of the first thing
he does is to ask for Russia, to become a member of NATO. Why not be a member of NATO? NATO was created to defend Europe and perhaps not only Europe
from Soviet aggression, from a country that you couldn't predict. There is no more Soviet Union, and there is no more Warsaw Pact. Why can't we create an organization where we are part of it, said Mr. Putin, and act together to protect
from some kind of aggression. He was told, go take a walk, basically. What about some kind of partnership or becoming part of the European Union? Again, and this is all
documented, everything I say, except when I say my
opinion, is documented, you can look it up. And he said, no, you know, you're too big. Your country is too big, you can. And all the while Russia
was being reminded that it's no longer really
that important in the country. Now, one of the things
you must keep in mind is that much like the
Americans, the Russians believe that they have a mission,
that their country was selected by destiny. Now, you know, my being
French I laugh at that. I laugh both at you and at them. Because we French know that
we're the best and we are known, and we have no mission,
you know, that's it. But seriously speaking, that's a fact. And so the sense of losing
this aura of greatness of being told, we don't care about you, the reaction of the
average Russian to that was one of you're insulting me. You don't respect me. And so the anger, gradually, and the anger focused on Gorbachev. Many, many Russians figured
you sold the country. You don't stand up to these men, to the United States. And then the same thing for Yeltsin. You'd be surprised how unpopular Gorbachev and Yeltsin are today in
Russia, maybe 5% support them, precisely for that reason? Well, there are some others as well that have to do with economic
things, but nonetheless. So now here we have Putin, who as you know, as soon as 911 happens, calls up, Bush Jr. W, and offers his help. And yes, and does help in Afghanistan. And if you wanna have your soldiers, your military people in Central
Asia, right on our borders, be my guest and in Georgia, absolutely. So it's not just words, you know, we wanna fight terrorism together and gets nothing in exchange. So finally in 2007, in
Munich speaking to the 20, the group of 20 in
Munich, Putin says this. This is February 10th. "I think it is obvious that NATO expansion "does not have any relation "with the modernization
of the Alliance itself "or with ensuring security in Europe. "On the contrary, it represents
a serious provocation "that reduces the level of mutual trust. "And we have the right to ask against whom "Is this expansion intended? "And what happened to the
assurance of our Western partners "made after the dissolution
of the Warsaw Pact, "where are those declarations today? "No one even remembers them. "But I will allow myself
to remind this audience "what was said. "I would like to quote the
speech of General Secretary, "Mr. Berner of Brussels on May 17th, 1990. "He said at the time, quote,
the fact that we are not ready "to place a NATO army
outside of German territory, "gives the Soviet Union a
firm security guarantee. "Where are these guarantees?" And you know what the answer was? The answer was, yes, but
that was guarantees given to the Soviet Union and you're Russia. Well, what kind of a
reaction would you expect? Last year, I think it was, making a foreign policy
speech, Putin said, "Our mistake was that
we trusted you too much. "And your mistake was that you tried "to take advantage of that." That is the situation today. Now, it may seem to you that
I'm blaming the United States, I don't want the word blame used. It was a mistaken political decision. It was not the Russians. It was this decision that
finally led to this change in Putin's attitude towards
the west and in particular, towards the United States, which is why I say how U.S. policy created Putin the way he is today. And the really, if you
will, dangerous thing is that Russian leadership,
I should be more precise and say Vladimir Putin
does not trust the West, does not trust the United States, which makes it very difficult to move away from where we are today. So something I wanna underline, so we are in now in a new
arms race, which is terrible. We are in a new Cold War
which threatens all of us. The danger of an accidental
nuclear exchange has grown. We no longer seem to fear that, there used to be demonstrations, you know, get rid of nuclear weapons,
that's not happening anymore. The possibility of a terrorist
organization somehow getting a nuclear weapon has grown. And to make it look like someone used it on each side, not the terrorists. So that I believe is something
we should all understand and finally, as someone
who works in media, I would like to say that
Russian media, Mainstream, I mean Mainstream Media,
paints America black Russian media, Mainstream
media controlled directly or indirectly by the government shows an extremely negative
picture of the United States, U.S. policy and so on. And much to my surprise,
mainstream American media does exactly the same
thing vis-a-vis Russia. Which to me, is amazing
because this is supposed to be a free media that's
differing from the Russian one. As someone who works in Russian media, I can say it's hard to
call it a free media. There are some opposition
newspapers and radio, but that's not mainstream. They address a very
small number of people. So there we are, I think people who call themselves
journalists in my book, they're not journalists. But those people have
played and are playing a destructive role in creating
the fear, the dislike, the distrust, that the
people in both countries have vis-a-vis each other. And the fact that we don't
seem to question our media is really quite interesting. But there it is,
nonetheless, we just take it. So I'd like to wind up with
a quote from a gentleman, no, I hesitate to use the word gentleman, from a man whose name was Herman Goering. You all know who he was? There may be some people
who are too young to know. Well, he was Hitler's right hand man, and he commanded the Luftwaffe,
the German Air Force. And he was, of course, at Nuremberg, he was judged, getting
sentenced to death to hang. But he managed to get some poison, probably from the Soviets, of course, since they poison people, as we know, so as not to be hanged. But he was interviewed
by an American journalist shortly before he committed suicide. And here's what he said. And I think this is something
that we should all remember. "Naturally, the common
people don't want war. 'Neither in Russia nor in England, "nor for that matter in
Germany, that is understood. "But after all, it is the
leaders of the country "who determined the policy. "And it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, "whether it is the democracy
or a fascist dictatorship, "or a parliament, or a
communist dictatorship. "Voice or no voice, the
people can always be brought "to the bidding of the leaders. "That is easy. "All you have to do is tell them "they are being attacked
and denounce the peacemakers "for a lack of patriotism, "and exposing the country to danger. "It works the same in any country." Said Mr. Gary. And I think he was absolutely right. And we are being led by our
media, by our politicians in that direction in both countries. I remember an ad that I
saw, a famous American actor whose name I, he starred in,
oh, gosh, so many movies, An African American, not a young, what? - [Woman] Freeman. - Freeman, yes, yes, and
he says, we are at war. And he does it very well. He's a wonderful actor. But you know, he's tells you, we are at war, and we
must and dah dah dah dah. And of course, it's very scary. You know, there's nothing I can
do about that except, speak. And I speak, I'm happy
to speak here today, I do this in Russia. And I'll keep doing it as
long as I possibly can. Because there has to be some voice raised against what's happening. We're being manipulated. You know, the way Putin is portrayed. Well, he's worse than Hitler. And even Hillary Clinton,
you compare him to Hitler, this is, I'm not a Putin fan, believe me, but what's going on here? And of course, President Trump,
well, even your own press is not too positive about him, but anyway. So basically, that's what
I wanted to share with you and see I've only spoken for 45 minutes. And I would very much like to discuss, I hope you have problems,
and problems, point. (audience laughing) That was a Freudian slip, wasn't it? I hope you have questions,
I'm sure that, you know, what I've just said, in the
sense of what's happened, it can't be argued about. I mean these are facts,
but how you interpret them, that's a whole different issue. So thank you again for, for
listening and let's talk. (audience applauding) - So I am acutely aware of which one of us has more experience in
this kind of a forum. So I think I will skip
the part where I ask the first question and
open it up for questions and comments with the following
suggestions and guidelines. We have two microphones,
please wait for a microphone. You may think that you have a loud voice but the people behind you will not agree. So please wait for the microphone. Please be aware of the fact
that we have some limited time for conversation and a lot of us. So please keep your
questions reasonably brief and we'll try to keep things moving. And we'll move back and
forth from side to side. So I'm gonna start on this side. Go ahead, sir. - I'm very interested in your
take on Russian interference. The U.S. Intelligence
overwhelmingly concluded that Russia is involved in U.S. elections. And I don't think I'm
over assuming in saying that the Russians are in
favor of the Republicans. So I'm very interested
in your take on that. - Well, I think that's a you know, a question a lot of people have, I'm happy to answer as well as I can. I wouldn't say that the Russians
support the Republicans. I mean, the Russians don't really know who the republicans are. It's not part of their daily interest or the democrats for that matter. But, is this microphone working? - [Audience] Yes. - Okay, but it is the fact
that Republican presidents over the years have been the ones that have achieved breakthroughs
with the Soviet Union. Nixon did when Jews were allowed
to emigrate, this was 1972. Bush did, Reagan did,
while the democratic ones such as Carter, and Clinton
had not been so successful, but that's, Russians did support, including the Russian
leadership I'm certain did support Trump. Now, look, they had a choice. Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton said
that Putin was a former KGB agent and had no soul
and compared him to Hitler. Trump said, I think I
can work with this man. I think we can do this. Now, yes, the Russians wanted him to win. And I think that's normal. Did the Russians interfere? Officially, Putin denies it. The Russians officially deny it. U.S. Intelligence,
different intelligence says, it can't furnish the exact proof but it is certain that they did. I've been reading just recently, you know, there was this huge, I
don't know how many pages, special issue in New York Times about the you know, pages and pages with wonderful illustrations that are supposed to really
prove, you know, like this. No, this kind of thing. This is journalism. Interesting, isn't it? And when you read the
article very carefully, and you ask yourself, it's not an article. This one, two, three, four with graphics, five, six, six pages
of the New York Times. And when you read it
carefully, you ask yourself, why was it published now? It's got to be a reason for this, right? I mean, this happened a while ago. What is the idea? And what you find at the very tail end is that over the past few
years in this country, the popularity of Mr.
Putin has increased by 11%. And the number of people who believe that the Russians interfered
has gone down by five. That's a good reason to
publish something like this. And this is a very
detailed, interesting story that doesn't furnish any proof. But it's very well done as
the New York Times does. This is just one. So I said this came out September 20th. The next one comes out in Time Magazine, which is October 1st,
not yet their big story on the same thing, but this is, again, the interference of the Russians. And then we have another story in the New York Times September 26. So I'm saying to myself,
wow, this is like a kind of a salvo cannons going. And I have to ask myself,
is there a reason for this? And I would ask you, you know, why now? Does this have to do with
the midterm elections? I think it probably does. Now, did the Russians interfere? I think they probably did. I think they probably did. Was that effective? I doubt it, I very much doubt it. They didn't spend a whole
lot of money, about $100,000, which is really nothing when
you talk about the election. But they did, you know, some
interesting stuff, if you will. I believe that, to
actually think that Trump won the election because
of Russian interference, you have to be very naive for that. I mean, a farmer in Idaho was influenced by Russian propaganda? I mean, I worked in Soviet
propaganda for many years. And I'm not of the highest,
how should I say this? I mean, it's not that great propaganda. (audience laughing)
You know. It's not something I'm
proud of what I did. I mean, perhaps what I do today is because of what I did back then, you know, try and make up. But really, was Putin the
man who said, let's do this? I don't know, I can't
say yes or no to that. I'm a journalist, give me proof. Give me proof and I'll say
yes or no, depending on that. But I think yeah, there
was probably an attempt to do it and so what? Does America ever interfere
in elections, anywhere? (audience laughing) Never! You know, why is it okay for you and not okay for them? You know that's a question. Well, I got an answer to that from one former CIA high ranking gentleman. "He said, well, you see,
yes, we do interfere. "But we interfere for good,
and you interfere with that." So I thought, well, that's it. So that's how it answer your question. I would say, yes, I would
not exaggerate the result of that, the impact of it. And I would say that it's being
used as a political toy ploy in this country now for
a variety of reasons. And it only really surfaced
after Hillary lost. Before that, it wasn't there. But you had to find a reason why she lost. And of course, it was
the big bad Russian bear. And that's part of the course, isn't it? Le's hear the next question. - [Man] what is your opinion of the past Trump, Putin meeting? And you think it was
for show or do you think it's actually reasoning trying
to better our relations. - Even if it was for show, it was good. It was good for, how should I
put this, for public feeling. At last, these two men, one
of whom is the president of the most powerful country in the world, and the other is the
president of a country that has 10,000 nuclear warheads, and may not be that powerful,
but it's very dangerous. These two men have gotten together. And that in itself is positive. Nothing was really achieved. But I would say that one
of the important thing is it seems to me that the two
men kind of like each other. And that's very important. You know, Gorbachev and Reagan, were completely different human
beings, I mean completely. But they like each other. And they achieve some really
incredible breakthroughs when you think about it. So I think it was a good thing. I think it was a first step. Of course here, the reaction
to it was very negative. Because supposedly, well,
you know what Trump said that he trusted Putin, and that
he trusted his intelligence. So how can you trust both? They're saying opposite things. And there was a lot of talk about the fact that he lost to Putin. What did he lose? He gave Putin the opportunity to be on the same stage with him. That's true, that's true. Did that increase Putin's stature? I don't think so, I don't think so at all. And I hope that there's a next meeting, I hope there is. I hope that somehow
there will be an attempt to break out of the
situation that we're in now. I mean, I'm not again, I'm
not a big fan of Mr. Trump's. But even if he tries to do
something, the Congress, the U.S. Congress, seems hell
bent on not allowing that. And I don't know why. Now, if, if the American establishment wants regime change in
Russia, wants Putin out and someone different
in, if that is the aim of the people who run this
country, let's put it that way, that is extreme dangerous. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. Russians are living worse today than they did five years ago. The sanctions are hurting. But the average Russian is saying, we're being punished
for things we never did. This is not fair. This is the American bully,
throwing his weight around. And we'll take it, we can take it. And I think that's true. The Russians, the tougher it
is, the more tough they become. They're pretty weak when things are good. No, it's true, but when things are tough, that's when they're really, you know. And I was reading this book
by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. It's called "The Cycles
of American History," and he dwells on 1850 when the, you know, there were revolutions in Europe in 1848. And there was a Hungarian Revolution. And the leader of that revolution
was a man called Kossuth. And finally, that revolution
was, and he was destroyed by the Austrians and the Russians. And so speaking in Congress,
an American senator said that the United
States should interfere. This is 1850. And Senator Hale, and
there's this quote, he said, the future historian might
start off his chapter about the year 1850 in
the following manner. At the commencement of this
year, the American Senate, the highest legislative body of the world, the world wisest, greatest
and most magnanimous people that ever lived or ever will live, forgetting and neglecting
the trifling local affairs, which considered their own limits, constituted themselves into
a high court and proceeded to try the nations of the earth for atrocious acts of despotism. 1850, the idea that the
United States has the right to interfere in other countries
because they behaved badly from a U.S. or other point of view, that was from a U.S. point of view, 1850, well, then you begin to understand a lot of other things, because that's what the United States has done time and time again, but when another country does
that, that's not permissible. So in Syria, if the U.S. goes
in to protect the so called and support, the so called
moderate opposition. And the Russians go in to
support Saddam, not Saddam - [Audience] Assad. - Assad, the Americans
can do it, that's okay. The Russians can't, you know,
where's your logic here? It's a tit-for-tat thing, isn't it? So, you know, that's
pretty much in my view the answer there. That's how I look at this issue. - Is there someone over on this side? - Are we done? - No, no, pick on this side. There's a question right over here. Perhaps, if you would
also identify yourselves before you ask your question. - [Rob] Okay, my name is Rob Foreman, I work for the medical school here. I used to listen to you on
radio Moscow so (laughs). - That was a long time ago. - [Rob] See the gray hairs? - Yeah, well-- (audience laughing) - [Rob] But I'd like to frame
it a little differently. That I'm not so sure I
perceive Americans to be hating what Russia did in interfering, although America has some of that attitude that you described, but
disliking the fact that someone who is largely considered to
be an incompetent president, who does not have the interests
of this country at heart is beholden to the Russians,
even if the Russians, what they did was comparable
to the what the Americans have done in Central America
and who knows where else. And on that basis, I guess my question is A,
do you think that analysis is accurate and B, why not? If not, because I don't know
that it is so much an attack on what the Russians did
in 2016 as on the person who seems to be in the
pocket of those who did it? - Well, I would say this, it
was Kennedy who used to say, I'll say this to that, right. I will say this. What I said initially,
when I compared what Trump was saying during the
presidential campaign and what Hillary was saying, it's obvious to anyone that the Russians would support Trump, it's obvious. And Americans should understand that. Not because of what Trump stands for, not because he's a whatever
he is, not because he wants the Supreme Court to be more conservative. Russians don't care about that. They don't even, it's not
part of what they think. But they think about the
relationship between Russia and the United States. And judging from what he said, back then, their relationship could improve. And that's basically it on the one hand. On the other hand, you
recall as well as I do, how many American senators, how many political figures said that the Russians were trying
to destroy American democracy. What does that mean? How so that the aim of the Russians was to somehow destroy American democracy? There's none of that. So I can understand what you're saying. But it really is not at all. It doesn't correspond to what Mr. Putin or the majority of people in
Russia really cared about, or care about today. Today, there is much less support for Donald Trump in Russia than there was. People are asking themselves,
who the hell is this man? He comes here and he says
one thing and he goes away and says something completely different. You know, if today he says,
yes, tomorrow he says no to the same thing. So there are lots of questions. And there's kind of a, how should I put this? They don't take him too seriously anymore, except that he has enormous power. - [Alexander] My name is
Alexander, I'm an undergraduate. You touched on at the
beginning of your talk about how there's intense
American hatred in Russia. And just now you say that,
you know, most Russians would want to improve relations. Why do you think, how does
that help push into have like, very bad relations with
America or like a bad image of Americans and Russian minds? And also, do you think that
this hatred is reciprocal, like, is there a distrust of or dislike of Russians in America? - I think the word hatred is a bit strong and I didn't use it. I said that the attitude of Russians today towards American is more negative than it was back during the
Cold War, the worst times, and I think it's mutual. And I think that that's the
result of what the politicians have said, what they've
done and what the media is doing in both countries. And I think it's an
issue of political will. Because before Gorbachev
came to power in Russia, in Soviet Union, excuse me,
the attitude was negative in this country, very
negative towards Soviet Union, and the Russians, you know, the Russians, oh, the Russians are coming (mumbles). But as soon as Gorbachev
started changing things, glasnost, perestroika,
suddenly became Gorby, he became, you know,
America's favorite guy. So I think that if there
is a desire on both sides to change that attitude, it
can be done very quickly. And that's why I say
that we're manipulated. We are manipulated. And we all say, well,
I'm totally independent. It's not true, we make our decisions, and we come to certain conclusions
because of what we read, because of what we see and
because of what we hear. So, basically, that's it. I would say that certainly
the internet allows us to get a much broader picture. In fact, we could communicate with the other side via the internet. It's not happening very
much, but it is a little bit. So that the, how should I put
this, the ordinary citizen could do a lot to change what's
happening in both countries, and it's a two way street. And I think it's people like you, that is to say of your age, they're the ones who for me,
are the reason for optimism because you can do this. Whereas people of my age
and slightly younger, can do far less. So I would hope that, you
know, what I've said today might lead you to look into this. And I don't say to anyone, believe me. Trust me, heaven forbid, look into it. That's all I would say. - So I was struck in both your talking and now your sort of mutual
indictment of the media on both sides and I've
been curious for a while about how this may or may not be different to what this picture looks
like say in the mid 1980s. - I wonder if you could recall, so just take the New York Times. I mean, I wonder if you
could recall with you know, what New York Times reporting about Russia about the Soviet Union
was like, in the 80s. - Yeah. - And whether you see a
significant difference-- - Let me give you an example. Back in the 1970s, 1980s, all of the major television networks, which are the most powerful
in the sense of affecting back then especially
affecting people's use. All three of the major networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC had bureaus in Moscow. The head of the ABC Bureau was a woman by the name of Anne Garrels. Well, that was a rare thing
in those years for a bureau to have a woman as a chief. Not only that, but she spoke Russian and I'd like to tell you that the vast majority
of American journalists did not speak Russian, they
had interpreters, she didn't. And one day when, and I
met her at some reception, and I was doing the show that, you know, I did for Moscow radio. And we talked and she said, "You should be on U.S. television." I said, well, you know,
how does that happen? She called up Ted Koppel, you remember who he was right, Nightline? I hope you've not forgotten. (audience laughing) And she said, you know,
Ted, instead of having dissidents on all the time, who represent 0.0 point something of the country of the Soviet Union, she's called on someone
who can can express the Soviet viewpoint and
who can do it in English. So I got on Nightline, and since I was not your typical Russian as far
as the American audience was concerned, who is this? I had great ratings and so I was on again and again and again. And then on NBC and
CBS and here and there. Today, that wouldn't happen. I was allowed to argue
the Soviet viewpoint on American television. I was allowed to do that. Ted would invite someone
from the State Department to rebut me and very often the
State Department would say, we're not gonna do this 'cause Constantine is a pain in the what sits and we don't wanna talk
to him, that's fine. Today, I would not get that possibility to be on a major network regularly. And that's what's changed. That's what's really changed. And I've come to think that
Government censorship official or not official, and so
Soviet Union was official. It was an official censor,
you have to go with your piece and the center would read
it, stamp it, censorship. Today that doesn't exist in Russia. But of course there is
censorship when, you know, the boss says no, you can't say that or you can't print that. So, and I'm talking about
mainstream media, right? So I call that government censorship. But there's something that
I call company censorship. And it's just as effective. And what's happened with
American media much of my regret, is that what used to be independent, you know, CNN belonged to
Ted Turner and he ran it. CBS was created by William
Paley and he ran it. But gradually, many of
these very important sources were bought by larger companies. CNN, he sold it NBC, NBC was
bought by AOL, ABC by Disney. And so these very important
media, whatever organizations became part of huge
conglomerates and information was then made very different. The attitude towards what media is supposed to do changed dramatically. I asked to the group of
people, I paid for it actually, just try to find in the New York Times over the past three years, 2015, '16, '17, any positive article about Russia, one positive article, didn't find any. Not one, now I say myself,
is that isn't censorship, then what is it? I mean, there have to be people
who come to Russia and say, gee, they have good ice cream, you know, or they have great theater, and they do. And people are standing in
line for theater tickets. And that's a nice thing, right? Give a more or less accurate,
but no, it's all negative. And that's the New York Times,
let alone everything else. And it's to me, it's
terribly disappointing, because I was, you know, I
worked here for many CNBC for quite a few years until a man by the name of Roger Ailes, I don't know if you recall who that was, he killed our program
because we were too liberal. Just didn't resume the
contract, and that was that. So I know what freedom
to press is on both sides of the fence as it were. It's a different issue. So that's what I'm saying
that we in a strange way corporate censorship is just
as effective and sometimes far more sophisticated
than government censorship. - I think we're over on
this side of the room and people in the middle are also welcome to ask questions somewhere. We see a head way in the back. - Actually, you could lob the microphone. - [Rick] So, my name is Rick Schneider. I work with Rivendell Institute at Yale. - Where are you? - [Rick] Right here. - Okay, thank you. - [Rick] I'm also a visiting
professor, have been at GMO and currently at Vushka. - Yeah. - [Rick] So my question
is, from your discussions, experience with leaders in Russia, do you sense any room for
compromise on Ukraine? I mean, after all the, maybe the big sticking point right now in our relations is all of those sanctions,
most of the sanctions other than the Magnitsky, of course, but most of the sanctions
are about Ukraine and Donbass is a big problem. So, is there room for
compromise to fix that? - I bet, first of all,
I applaud the question because the key word is compromise. The key word is compromise. I had asked for the
possibility to show a map. Is that still possible or is
that not possible anymore? I wanna answer your question, because I wanna show something that I think is important. And I asked, oh my! (audience laughing) I asked that a map of Russia with Ukraine be put up on the screen and hopefully-- - [Technician] This will take, it'll take a couple of seconds. - I'm in no hurry, and a
map of the United States and Mexico be put up on screen. Now, let me go back to the
Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962. Two totally independent
leaders, Nikita Khrushchev and Fidel Castro decide
that it would be a good idea for Russia to deploy
missiles on Cuban soil. Did they have the right
to make that decision? Absolutely, two independent countries, and Fidel Castro was not
a satellite, for sure. So, is that, okay. So they make that agreement. And so it's begin bringing
in them the missiles or the parts to assemble. And the United States discovers this. - [Technician] That's not the (mumbles). No, no, no. - And Kennedy says to the Russians, turn your ships around,
or we will sink them. And if there leads to
World War III, so be it. And the Russians turn their ships around. But there was a compromise. Not made public in this
country at that time. Kennedy agreed to pull
out American missiles that were deployed in Turkey in exchange, because the Russian said,
look, you have missiles in Turkey right on our border, almost. You say our missiles are
an existential threat, but so are yours. Take them out and we will not deploy ours. That was a compromise. Now, Kennedy asked that
this not be made public because it would kind of
be seen as a loss of faith and blah, blah, blah,
and it wasn't made public and then it was later. So that was a compromise. And it helps avoid World War III. Well, this is not yet happening-- - You may have to sort of ask folks to conjure in their minds. - All right, I will do that. - Yes, I think you wanted to-- - So now the Russian leadership sees NATO as an existential threat. Rightly or wrongly, that's not the point. The point is that that's
the way it's seen. And this is not politics. You know, why would you bring NATO closer and closer to
our borders, they say. In Latvia, it's on the border, in Estonia, it's on the border. Now, Ukraine is being, is moving westward, the complicated issue, the United States has played a certain role in
this, that's not the point. It's moving westward. If it ultimately goes
into the western fold or whatever you wanna call it, then it's logical to surmise that Ukraine will join the European Union
and will become a NATO member. Now Ukraine has a border with Russia. Not only that, but Crimea,
which was traditionally Russian, but I'm not, we can go
into the complicated thing about how Ukraine was
Russia and was (mumbles), not the point, but Sebastopol
was always the base of the Navy, the Russian Navy, naval fleet of the Black Sea. So if Crimea remains Ukraine, and if Ukraine becomes part of NATO, the Russian fleet won't be. So that's the poll, but the American 60 might very well be there. And NATO will be on
Russia's southwest border. And the Russians see this
as an existential danger. And they say, we will not permit it. Now, does that correspond
to international law? No, it doesn't. When you talk about existential threat, you say, I don't care
about international law, as in the Cuban Missile Crisis. You say, no, we don't
give a damn how you feel. We're not going to allow this. It is my opinion that
had from the very outset, been some kind of internationally
negotiated agreement, that Ukraine would not
become a member of NATO for at least the next 50 years, there would be no Ukrainian problem. Why did I ask for a map of
the United States and Mexico? Well, the United States has a pretty large border with Mexico. Now imagine that you have
a revolution in Mexico. That's not that hard to imagine. And imagine that the
government that comes to power is not a big fan of the
United States of America. I think that too, is not
difficult to imagine. But since it's a little
bit afraid of big brother, it asks the Russians to
send over three or four or five divisions to be placed
on the U.S. Mexican border. You think the U.S. would accept that? So why would the Russians accept this? That's what it's really all about. Does there have to be a compromise? In my opinion, yes. And the compromise has to
be that Ukraine guarantee will not become a member of NATO. And then the compromise is
that the Russians get out. We get out, but there's the guarantee. Crimea is a different issue. There could be an agreement
that let's do another referendum under international supervision. Let's see what the people of Crimea want. Do they really wanna be part of Russia or do they wanna be part of Ukraine? Or do they wanna be an
independent republic? I know that the answer
will be overwhelming. And so does everyone. Which is why no one is even
suggesting because the majority of the people who live in
Crimea wanna be part of Russia. It's a tradition, it's existed
that way for a long time. But basically, that's my answer. Yes, you need a compromise. And if neither side is
willing to compromise, well, then we're in deep whatever. - We're over here for the next question. (man speaks in foreign language) I can't hear you. (man speaks in foreign language) You guys speak Russian? - [Man] No, I gonna switch to English. I just wanted to greet you in Russian. I've been following you
for many years, your work. Going back to tell
telebridge was Phil Donahue and certainly, some of
us remember those days in Washington back in the Soviet Union. I'm from Ukraine, just for the record. So I certainly share your
view about a lot of things that you speak about. Today, however, I'm
struggling a little bit to accept your point of view. And I can't get rid of a
feeling that it's almost like a legal defense
that is trying to explain the bad behavior of a person
by the external circumstances. I'm certainly not naive or
idealistic about the policymaking in any country, including
the United States. And certainly, I do agree
that mistakes were made. Not being an expert in this field, it's difficult for me to really know the exact chronological
sequence of the events. So it's difficult to
argue what was the cause and what was the effect
of what you're describing. However, in your presentation today, I think you certainly presented Mr. Putin as a positive peace loving person. And I'm not sure that I
agree with that assessment. - I don't know, I don't. - [Man] Well, you certainly brought up a number of effects that
presented him as somebody who was continuously on the
ongoing basis reaching out to the world, not just the United States, but the West was the
peace, mission in mind. However, his actions, not
just vis-a-vis, Crimea but overall, Eastern Ukraine. His pretty aggressive actions in Syria, certainly don't create that position. So I think there's a little
bit of a disconnect between, either that's the United
States or our policymakers made that, created that
image of Putin as somebody who is a not an easy person to work with? (audience applauding) But certainly his actions in many ways, not just his actions, but
also the aggressive tactics of the military, Russian
military, in a lot of his regions don't support that, that view. But to get to my question, I
think, while I generally if we, for discussion sake, agreed
to accept that the U.S. and maybe the Western
world contributed in a way to the image of Putin that you described. Putin is not only responsible
for the foreign policy of the Russian Federation, but
also for its domestic policy, and who contributed to his
image as the domestic leader of Russia as somebody who
is fairly authoritarian in the way he runs the country, thank you. - That wasn't a question
but I'll answer it. (audience laughing) I made a point of up to 2007. And up to 2007, Putin did
nothing internationally that would speak of an
aggression, nothing at all. It all happened after 2007. It happened in 2008 with
Georgia, with the war. Officially it wasn't
Putin, it was Vladimir, but you know, so no big difference. And then all the other things
that you're talking about, but up until 2007. And so that Munich speech when
he said, enough is enough, you have to respect us, you
have to take into consideration, our interest, the world is not uni polar, it is multipolar and we will
have to keep that in mind. Incidentally, that's why
he's so popular in Russia. Not because he contributed to
people's living much better although they did, but he was lucky because the price of oil was high and so that certainly helped. But because people saw him
as someone who stood up to the American bully, and told him off. And that's where his
popularity comes from. Russia is back. We're up from our knees,
as people would say. And they have to take
us into consideration. And we don't give a damn if you like us or you don't like us. But you know, Putin is our man. He is a true patriot. And that's where his strength lies. Now, if you talk about
his domestic policies, I would absolutely agree with you that A, he is authoritarian, B, he has pretty much stymied the development of democracy in Russia. I do not agree with basically almost all of his policies in Russia,
not all but almost all. I'm much more supportive
of his international views than with his domestic views. So I have no argument with you. I did not present, I don't
think I did present him as a, you know, a lover of peace. I was simply making the point
that up until a certain moment you could not really
blame him for anything. And that well, I say find it,
just point me, you know, say, well in 2006 or in 2005,
Russia did this and this, you know, I would say okay, fine. I don't know what, you know,
what are we talking about. And of course, Ukraine, with
its proximity to Russia, and have having been seen,
always as close to Russia because of the language,
because of the religion, in a way the Russians, you
know, the Rus being where Russia was born in Ukraine. So the fact that Ukraine would leave, very painful to Russians, as it would be in, you
know, in other countries, but that certainly does
not, how should I this, that certainly does
not make Putin blame us in what's happened in Ukraine. So I have no argument with you at all. But because of the
mistakes that we're making, in my opinion that were
made, you have now a man who has a very different
outlook than he did. How many years ago now, you
know, and that's too bad. I think that there was a
huge window of opportunity. And it was missed. And it's too bad for everyone. - There's a hand right up here. - [Anastasia] Hi, my name is
Anastasia, I'm from Moscow. So I grew up in Russia,
but I've lived in the U.S. now for five years. So we've talked a lot about
Putin and how powerful he is and his international policy. But, you know, being the
Russian myself, I asked myself, is there a future for Russia? Should we hope for anything better? Should we because you
know, now, I feel like there is a big division in
terms of what people think like some people just
think Putin is everything, all we've got, and there
is no other future for us. But then, of course, with
Navalny being in the picture, and I know you're not the fan of him. - No, I'm not. - [Anastasia] But, you know,
except for him, of course, there might be someone else. But my question is, should
we hope for any improvements in terms of like for us for Russians? Should we hope for the future for Russia or should we just practice
our American accent and forget about? - Well, you know, when
you asked that question, I would have to ask what what do you mean? What would you like to change? What is it that that makes
you ask that question? And my answer to that is,
of course, there's a future. And the future is, let me
back up a little bit here. The main problem, from my
point of view in Russia, is that the leadership, all
the leadership is Soviet. All the people who are
at the head of politics and all the rest of
it, they're all Soviet. They were born in the Soviet Union. They went to Soviet schools. They were members of the Young Pioneers. They were members of the
Young Communist League. They were members of the
Communist Party, most of them. They were created, formed by a
system that no longer exists. They're trying to run a system that they really don't
know anything about. And they're not very good at it. But whatever they do, is
based on the mentality that they have. And that mentality is a Soviet mentality. And there's not much
you can do about that. That's the way they were brought up. And you can't say, well,
where are the others 'cause there are no others. And what I say is, in my
opinion, the hope is that people who are not born
in the Soviet Union, who were born afterwards, that is to say, the next generation and
the generation after that, that's when you will see real change and you have to have patience. I have no doubt that
Russia is a great country. And you know, during the worst times like the Tsar Nicholas
I, during those years, Russia's greatest literature developed. So it's not that, it's not
that you can't just look at it from that side, I certainly
hope, I won't see it. Not at my age, it's gonna
take another 20, 30 years. But in all countries,
for democracy to develop, it took over 200. And I guess there were
people back then saying, gee, do we have a future? Because there were all kinds of things. You had slavery in the United States less than 200 years ago. Come on, since you have to
look at it realistically. So my answer to you is yes,
I absolutely do believe it. But it's going to take time and you cannot do anything about that. Except that if you're young, you can look forward to a
change that is inevitable because those people will disappear. And it will be your ballgame. As a Yankee fan, I know what I'm saying. (audience laughing) - [Alec] I'm here, here, over there. - Oh, okay. - I'm a father of Yale undergrad. My name is Alec, we met 16
years ago in Kazakhstan. We spent a couple of days
in much media business. Remember that? But the question that
I have, and you know, we had very interesting
discussion 16 years ago about what made my family
move to America from Odessa. And, you know, and I actually
I saw a lot about it, and now I know my answer. But back then, I believe
I told you the story about my father who really, you know, after the conflict and Transnistria that was 100 kilometers from Odessa, when people all of a sudden
started killing each other. You know, geopolitics, yeah,
we all understand that. Tit for tat, we understand that. You know, the United States
and Mexico, Russia and Ukraine, Southern border, NATO
fleet and Sevastopol, we all understand that. But with people going and
killing each other right now in 10 years, people who
lived on same street, it's not even Karabakh,
it's not like even Armenians and Azerbaijanis, we have
some ethnic conflicts, right? They have some, you know,
religious differences. But whatever is going
on in Donbass right now when neighbors killing
neighbors over nothing, I mean, do you really
think that that whole issue of Ukrainian language is
like really pressing there. Or these stories that were made up about, you know, Western Ukrainians,
Banderas, you know, Nazis was gonna move in,
who's gonna, you know, how do we stop that? How do we stop people
from killing each other in situations like
that, because, you know, they can meet up in Minsk,
they can do whatever, you know, they can make agreements. They can disagree, you
know, better than me about, you know, money interest and cryptocracy that is so omnipresent in Russia and Ukraine, and everywhere. But how do we stop that? How do we stop? How can United States and
Germany and Russia get together and stop brothers from killing brothers? - Well, you know, if I had the answers to all of those things, I probably would be in a different job. No, seriously, I mean, I
can't tell you how to solve the world's problems. And, you know, people
are killing each other. In many places in Africa, for instance, brother's killing brother and so on. And this is going on everywhere. But I would say that if the
leaders of Russia, of Ukraine, of the United States, of Germany, we're actually asking that question. That question they were asking. I think they'd find a way to answer it. But I don't think they're
asking that question. I think they're asking
very different questions. And they have very different aims. And that's why this is going on. So, to me, the answer is pretty obvious. How you make people do that, that's a different question. Why is it that egoistic
due to political interests take first place over these things. That's the real question. And when you say we understand, I don't know who you're talking about. Most people don't even know,
you know, in this country, where Georgia is for instance,
except the state of Georgia. Most people are really
really and in Russia too, the level of knowledge is lower than the doorstep as they say. So there is no effort and
the media does not play that game at all. It doesn't say, how do we stop? It says they are to blame. And that's it, and on both sides. So I think the only way to
stop it is for us to talk, make our voices heard. And that's not easy. And sometimes it's dangerous. But again, if you know, did I ever, no, of course not. There was a guy by the name,
his last name was Rindskopf, he is a German who fought
during World War I, he was the youngest Japanese,
U-boat commander or U-boat, as they were called, submarines. And when Germany lost the war,
he was totally crushed by it. And he became a priest,
Protestant priest in Hamburg and very anti war. And as he went up the ladder
as it were, Hitler did too. And Hitler became the head of
Germany and he became the head of the Protestant church in
Hamburg at the same time. And he spoke out against war. And finally he was arrested, and he was sent to a concentration camp. But he survived. And when he came back, he wrote a book. And in that book, there's a
passage that I know by heart, because I think it's one
of the most important and powerful things I've ever heard. He wrote, "When they came for the Jews, "I didn't say anything,
because I'm not Jewish. "And when they came for the communists, "I didn't say anything,
because I'm not a communist. "And when they came to
the trade union members, "I didn't say anything,
because I'm not a member "of the trade union. "And when I came for the Catholics, "I didn't say anything
because I'm not a Catholic. "And when they came for me,
there was no one to speak." And I feel that, I very
much feel that way. If we don't speak out, however we can, and not irresponsibly, and not
to say oh, look look at me, but rather with this understanding that it's our human duty to do this, well, then we keep saying,
well, they should do it. That's, it's certainly very Russian. They should do it. And if they don't, then what? So that's really, that's my view. And it's an idealistic view, perhaps, but that's the way I look at it. - [Anastasia] Okay, hi, I'm here. So my name is-- - (mumbles) to the left.
- Here. Coincidentally, I'm also
Anastasia from Moscow. (audience laughing) Hats of us here, I'm
a PhD student at Yale. So you started your talk by
outlining to strategists, the U.S. could have taken
towards the Soviet Union-- - Towards Russia. - Towards Russia, after
the Soviet Union collapsed, and presented this as a
cornerstone of the situation we have right now. - Yeah. - So if we hypothesize with your knowledge of Russian politics, economy,
you know, the Soviet mentality that you mentioned, do you
believe that some version of Marshall Plan could
have ever changed anything? - Well, you know, that's
a question that regardless of how I answer, I can't prove
it 'cause it didn't happen. So it's kind of as you say,
it's very hypothetical. But do I think that that
would have been better than what they did? Yes, clearly, clearly, it
would have been better. To what extent it would
have failed, who knows? I don't know. But I do know that when
Gorbachev announced glossiness, the media in Russia changed dramatically. And I think nobody would argue with that. Dramatically overnight, it
became a different kind of media. During the Soviet times,
40 million people tuned into the Voice of America in Russia, The BBC World Service in Russian, the Deutsche Welle in Russian, because they were not getting
in their own media information that they were getting
on these wave, you know, and the Russians tried to block that. The Soviet government did,
spent trillions of rubles, trying to block them but
people listened nonetheless. As soon as glossiness came,
and they stopped listening, they were getting it
from their own source. They were getting the
information, people know exactly when they're getting any when they're not. Or usually they do. So that's one example of
how quickly things change. So I do think that had
there been this attitude, let's help them. Let's help them become democratic. I do think that it would
have been a positive, the result would have been positive. I can't tell you how positive. So that's, you know,
my hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question. - I think we have two more, time for two more questions,
perhaps, over here. - [Acia] Thank you, my name is Acia. I'm from Yerevan, Armenia
right there on the map. - Well-- - [Acia] Yeah, it is tiny,
but it's still there. - You see it over there, right. That tiny little country
that says Armenia? - [Acia] Yes. - Okay. - [Acia] So I'm a doctoral
student and I study genocides, but today I'm going to ask-- - You study what? - [Acia] Genocides. - Wow! - [Acia] yeah, a lot of fun. But today, I'm going to ask a question about current developments that happened right next door to Russia, and are very connected to what you talked, about speaking out the new
generation that can change, the generation that maybe
does not have this mentality can change or may be the change. - Yeah. - And something like that
recently happened in Armenia, no one ever expected that
peaceful demonstrations in such a tiny post
Soviet landlocked country could lead to change, which was
the collapse of the old rule and establishment of the government, which is totally and fully
supported by the people. - Yeah. - And the funny question
that I always hear when I discuss this with
students or at conferences, is how come Russia did not intervene into these developments in any way? And I would really appreciate
your opinion in this, like, how come that Vladimir
Putin did not really respond in any visual way to this development? And how was this even or was it observed, seen in Russia because it was next door. It was a big change. And some people were even
speculating how this could serve as an example for other countries to topple their governments,
et cetera, thank you. - Well, one reason might be that Putin isn't quite the man you all think he is. You know, that's a possibility, I'm not insisting on it. Another reason might be that
the new leader of Armenia, never expressed any
anti Russian sentiment. On the contrary, said we are
in an independent country, but look where we are. And we've always had very
close ties with Russia and we wanna have close
ties, economic ties. There was no absolutely no
sense of enmity on the contrary, And it was the people, there
was no doubt at this time, that was the people who spoke out. You know, Armenia is really
a very small country. What's the population now? Three million, and there was a
million people that came out. Can you imagine 30% of
the entire population comes out in the streets. You can't ignore that. And that's another reason. But the very question,
why didn't Putin interfere reflects the way people think about it. Because that's the way it's been depicted. So, you know, that's my
answer, incidentally. Well no, I'm not gonna go into that. One more question you say. - I think one more, yeah,
we'll try to wrap up by six. So we're back on this side. I see a hand right next to you. Hello, you. - [Woman] Hi, I'm a
master's student in European and Russian studies. I guess my question is about the poisoning in the UK earlier this year. (audience laughing) - Finally, finally. - [Woman] Is there a way for
us to respond to that strongly that doesn't escalate, the kind
of confrontational paradigm? - Yeah, you know, when this
took place, so I was very, I was shocked and I tried to figure out for myself some kind of logic. Now, you know why we
would do this and why. Now, you know, let's
forget about the child, I means she's lame, you know, she didn't do anything. Skripal, he was a military agent, right? He worked for the former
GRU, not to the KGB, Putin work to the KGB,
he works for the GRU, which is military intelligence, and they can't stand the KGB, and the KGB can't stand
their intelligence. That's normal competition. So, and he betrayed his country. Let's face it, right. He went over to the other
side and began to work for British intelligence. And he was caught, and he was tried. And he was sentenced to 13 years. Now, I don't know if you're
familiar with what happens to spies, who to turn
against their own country, and are then caught? Well, in wartime, they're shot. But in peacetime, well,
it's usually something like 30 years, 25, 13 is a weird sentence. Not only does he get this
rather short sentence, considering, but he's
exchanged for Soviet, excuse me, Russian spies who were caught. Now if he was exchanged that means that he really didn't know
anything at that point. He was no danger to the Russian side. So, you know, let him go
and we'll get ours back. Now, Putin doesn't like traders, who does? If Putin wanted to kill him, he was in prison, he would do it. And you could say that
he had a heart attack or that he committed suicide or whatever. He was no problem killing
when he was in jail in Russia. They let him go, they exchanged him, they could have exchanged someone else, they exchanged him. What sense would it
make to poison this man under those circumstances,
I mean logically. Putin is anything but stupid. Not stupid, it's very risky. The risk of somehow this being
found out is always there. Why do it, this is not a dangerous person. He can't do anything. He can talk about what
he knows, but it's over. So I try to find, I'm not
saying he didn't do it. I'm saying I'm trying to
find some kind of logic, logic, not emotions, logic as
to why Putin would be involved in something like that. Alright, it's not Putin. It's one of those lower, you
know, one of the GRU people who think that Putin would
like it if they did it But would Putin like it
if it was discovered? No, of course not, they get
their head chopped down. So why would they risk it? They're not gonna get
decorations for doing it. Because if Putin had ordered it, then yes. So why would they do it? So to me, it really remains a mystery. Because it's stupid,
it's counterproductive. It doesn't do anything positive at all. So am I denying anything? I'm not denying, I'm saying give me proof. Please, just show me, yes, there it is. Now this interview, did you see it? The interview of Rita, what's her name? Sonya, of those two two people. Did you see it? It was one of the most unprofessional pieces of work that I've ever seen. (audience laughing) That was just, you know,
I thought what, who, why? And it happened, you
know, the day before that Putin had said these two
men should go to the media and so they come the next
day, they're there, you know. It's laughable except
that it's not, not really. So I would say to you that
whole story is disgusting. I find it hard to believe
that Putin initiated it, I really do, but somebody did. There's no doubt about it. And now I've heard a really nice story. You know that Mr Skripal in Britain, every time he'd meet with his
handlers, as they call them, he would be paid a
certain amount, not a lot, you know, 5,000 pounds or 7,000 pounds, where if he felt he had something really interesting to say, 10,000 pounds. But again, he was of no real interest. So I'm thinking, and now
this is John le Carré, right? I'm thinking, British intelligence
gets together and says, we don't need this guy,
and he's costing us money. And he's not kidding. Now, why don't we, and make
it look like it's Putin. Well, that's brilliant Chap,
you should do this, you know. So British intelligence poisons the guy, and the whole thing works this way. It's not impossible. I kind of laughed at myself
when I came up with that one. And I'd like to talk to Mr.
le Carré and see how he thinks. Incidentally, if you've not
read his last two books, "The Pigeon Tunnel," which is
a story of his life as a spy. And the other one I
forgot, "Legacy of a Spy." He writes with total disgust
about that profession that he was in for so long. I mean, really. So, you know, there it is. My answer to you is, I just don't know. It's such a weird thing, he really is. I see no reason for it. It's just invading another
country I can explain, right. But this I don't know. It makes no sense. One day, we'll know the real thing. Always have, is always very, I don't know, if you've ever been there. I was there, I shot a
documentary about England. And so, you know why I went
there, not because the steeple is I don't know, how many
feet high or something. I have no idea. It's a beautiful,
beautiful church actually. But it's because they have
their one of the three original copies of the Magna Carta. And that's the beginning of
real democracy in the West, if you don't count the ancient Greeks, and I really wanted to see it. And they brought it out. And I can't tell you what, you
know, when you look at that. And you say, what was it 12,
15 and they were already saying you can't put a man in
prison without proving that he's committed a crime. And you have all the kings
and queens and all of that. It's amazing, that's why I went there. These guys didn't even
know it was there, right? They went to see the
steeple, I mean, come on. - All right-- - Let me thank everyone
for listening to me. (audience applauding) (gentle music)
