War with Russia? Stephen F. Cohen and Dan Rather in Conversation with Katrina Vanden Heuvel

you heard from sue about our wonderful guess but let me say we gather tonight at a moment and I don't think I need to tell anyone in this audience who watches even a nanosecond of cable TV of TV or picks up the newspapers at a moment when us-russian relations are at their lowest and most dangerous point in the last 40 years if if not if not ever so I think this conversation tonight is extraordinarily important and as sue said it is to mark Steve Steve's new book or with Russia which you may not agree with much of but it is a dissenting heretical accessible alternative narrative to what so many have been reading these last four or five years from Putin in Ukraine to trump and Russia gate so I will say you know the other day we we will talk a little bit about the media the other day we had the BuzzFeed story which has been retracted for now or hasn't been but that President Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress every day their news allegations they're Russia gate allegations we have with us one of the great news anchors of our time who just I think two weeks ago wasn't it Dan who spoke toughly about the media and how it's abetted Trump so we'll talk a little bit about that but I want to say I want to be clear at the outset that well the book war with Russia is a collection of Steve's writings over the last four or five years for the nation calm we don't agree on everything and if our daughter who sat at many dinner table conversations and heard us vigorously disagree she's moved to California so if you want to hear disagreement visit our dinner table and our marriage has been the incubator of a great daughter but it has not been the incubator of agreement on much but I want to thank dan Rather for being with us tonight Steve was a consultant to CBS for at least a decade I think more and we were just talking in the green room but Dan may not know this how he figures in our personal life which intersects with Russia on so many levels but the day after Steve and I got married Steve spent his honeymoon with Dan Rather I had United Nations because Gorbachev was giving his great speech in 1989 on the first anniversary of our wedding we traveled with Dan and CBS to Rome and then to Malta where Bush and Gorbachev announced the end of the Cold War so very grateful to have Dan with us don't need to say soup described someone who has covered more than half a century of presidential elections Wars turmoil the political landscape of America in its fullness so grateful to have Dan here tonight but I'm gonna turn to Steve first and ask you and ideally in about 90 seconds to summarize the most salient controversial important takeaways of your book you all saw that right way she distanced herself from me which has been a problem for four or five years you should read the tribute I think it's a tribute to Katrina that I wrote in the book which was basically thank you for publishing these even though you didn't agree with many of them and she took a lot of grief for quite a few this is special for me tonight to be invited here I'm grateful to the 92nd Street Y these days I don't get invited most many places so I'm sort of grateful to be anywhere I am grateful that my wife who's much more illustrious than I am has put aside our disagreements briefly but above all to Dan there we go way way back from when CBS did hire me to be a consultant on Russia in the 80s late 80s when Russia was becoming the front page news story and we did travel a lot there's a lot of good stories to tell but what I took away with about Dan and very very important Dan in public persisted in referring to me as Professor Cohen always it was Professor Cohen private it was Steve I didn't know how to call him was I supposed to say anchorman dan Rather I mean what was the exact title but the takeaway was this that in my life I have never met an exemplar a model of civil discourse such as dan Rather and that's what I learned from him now I didn't practice the trade very well it's possible but in all the stressful situations I saw Dan reporting from his civility was just something I could not emulate so civil discourse is something we lack in this country today and I'm glad that Dan is back on television and and setting an example particularly for the younger people so briefly what's in the book well probably too much in this sense that I got mugged in 2014 I would I declared myself old or to be politically correct to senior citizen decided to turn to a an archive book I'd been working on for 20 years and then Ukraine happened and I couldn't resist and I began appearing on a radio broadcast weekly and then writing up these as commentaries and for the last four or five years almost weekly I've been caught up in unfolding events what I rediscovered was is how closely linked Russia and America are not just in their relations but each countries tends to see itself refracted through the other country this has gone on for centuries by the way but today it's really intense I mean if you want to hear a discussion about Russia Gate go to Moscow I just wrote a post for the nation today about that how Russians are reacting to Russia gate but what's in the book well mainly this the overlying argument is we are in a new Cold War people resisted that when I first began arguing that 15 years ago but now it's more or less accepted but my second argument and this is not accepted is that this cold war is much more dangerous than the ones that I can't see the demographics of the audience but I would judge it's fair to say the cold war that most of us survived this one is more dangerous I see unfolding and have protested this a kind of repetition of neo McCarthyism not as bad as it was but too much slurring of people who don't agree with one another this is a bad thing because inde legitimizes a debate we need to have that's another theme in the book unlike the previous code and I dan we remember it vividly 70s and 80s were full of debate and all the mainstream venues about the nature of the Cold War who was responsible what to do about it there's almost none of that in America today then in the book there is something that I stumbled upon that I came convinced of and that is the role shadowy role played by our intelligence services primarily the CIA when John Brennan was the head of it but also the FBI in the origins of what we now call Russia Gate so I've argued in the book that Russian Gate is substantially in tailgate something that involves the intelligence services then and kind of an ongoing lament that I feel because I've been part of the media for four decades and I work for CBS I wrote a column for the Nation magazine but I think the media is not doing its job today in covering Russia russian-american relations it always faltered sometimes but this is the worst I would call it media malpractice I have ever seen and I mean the mainstream I mean there are many exceptions but I'm talking about those outlets on which most of us depend and finally and this will be if you all again I can't see the ages but those of you all who are a certain age will remember that during the last Cold War there was a very well mainstream organized opposition to the Cold War in the United States he included heads of some of the major American corporations it included aides to presidents included members of Congress it included people who ran for president that they were opposed to the Cold War and they debated what could be done about it there is no public debate in the mainstream today it's one hand clapping and that to me in my lifetime is a radical change and it's a concern that runs through this little book and it's one reason that I changed the title I had a different title in mind and called it war with Russia question mark because in my long career of being involved in russian-american relations as a scholar and a participant I think our relations with Russia today are more dangerous than they have ever been even including the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 which we would all agree was the closest we came to nuclear war so I am very very worried and if you don't want to be worried you probably shouldn't read the book but if you want to worry a little about things that are not being brought to your attention in a regular basis then you might have a look if I may continue to follow along please first of all a very short preface and it will be short I'm here because any time I'm around a professor I learn a lot I don't always agree with him I don't agree with everything in this book there are other things in the book and which I can't say I disagree but I'm skeptical about but for those of you who don't know just let me underscore that you know I come from Texas for a football account of a secular religion and the saying among coaches is you are what your record is and Steve is what his record is and his record is that for the better part of half a century he is and I wouldn't say by consensus but widely acknowledged to be one of if not the premier experts on the all Soviet Union Russia and in history in all of what we roughly call Western civilization so the first reason I'm here out of respect for my friend and here's my friend Steve but that I always learned something the other is and I will this I know that 90 second background pretty well and you will appreciate our candy we're here to sell a book and that I want to help sell the book because I do think that with with with Steve who has some very controversial statements in the book he's referred to a couple yes one that he considers what he calls in tailgate to be much more important than dangerous and what he sees as the facts of Russia gate an extremely serious charge and if we were not coming from a Steve Cohen with his background one might dismiss it but with Steve's background and knowledge of one would dismiss it at their peril that isn't to say you have to accept it but there's so much in this book that will raise an eyebrow and what I hope you will do and I hope all of you will read the book is read the book consider what's in it process it digested in then make up your own mind about what you think about what Steve has has to say thank you and see you mentioned the phrase the new McCarthyism now it's one thing to take a lot of heat when you say contour show matters but I'm asking you to draw back take a breath in what we call on television the wide shot is that too strong to say there's a new McCarthyism maybe so much is generational I remember when I came from Kentucky and Indiana where I grew up to Columbia to get my PhD this was the early sixties I was stunned by how many of my professors who would have been then men in their probably late 50s or 60s had been burned and chilled by McCarthy and one of the things they said to some of us the ones they thought might not mind their P's and Q's so much is you got to be careful to me that was the legacy of McCarthy after McCarthy was gone but the ISM was still around that in my field people self-censored maybe they didn't even know it but it was understood that if you were gonna be a academic or a journalist or any person involved within the Soviet Union be careful what you say because it could have consequences so today I see in the discourse accusations that those of us who dissent from American policy for example I believe the Ukrainian crisis was not as it's called in the newspapers regularly Putin's aggression against Ukraine or an invasion but it was triggered by the american-led attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO and it was inevitable as any crisis imaginable when you understood what was going on that to me is a kind of scholarly argument that comes from studying what happened before but when I made it and not I alone immediately came a torrent of charges that we were apologist for Putin in the Kremlin that we were puddin's best friend and all sorts of things like that and lamely the only answer I could come up with is no I'm an apologist for American national security and what we did in Ukraine gravely danger damages our national security but the fact that you have to fight way your way through these accusations makes it really hard to get traction particularly in the mainstream so in that sense and maybe McCarthy isn't quite the right word but it's that slurring of people now I'll end on this note I don't know this to be true but I've heard it from friends I have who were still active universities training students that students are self censoring they sense out there a marketplace and they need the marketplace you have to raise their families which is not receptive to people who strayed too far from the mainstream consensus that would be the worst thing that could happen because we want our young people to think as freely as possible that's the privilege of young of being young though I'm taking it back for myself but nonetheless that's a route that really worries me and so that too is a kind of what I observed at Columbia when I came in the early 60s how these older professors of mine were still very careful and warned us to be careful it's that kind of thing that I called neo McCarthyism but I mean I mean again things are generational and I may exaggerate because of my own life experiences I I mean you you obviously feel that you don't see that you were there then too you sense something different not the same it may be it may be that different times demand different terms and that neo McCarthyism or McCarthyism isn't the right term but from where I sit and I think of the wise role in this context but the nation's role has been to foster not police debate and to not vilify those who take opposing points of view from the mainstream so I think we're in a moment and I won't name names which was a bad part of the first McCarthy era but you know there was someone on TV the other night Steve always wants to watch cable I but one of the cable anchors said loyal Americans don't go to Russia a congressman who I admire from Silicon Valley wrote Khanna sent a letter open letter congressional letter criticizing the rise of neo-nazi militias in Ukraine and he was vilified as Putin's puppet so I think there's something in the bloodstream that Reimer jizz at times of controversy but of course you saw your network Dan CBS Edward or Murrow played an important role in exposing the abuses and the senseless accusations of Joe McCarthy in that context I mean I wanted to ask you Dan you were quoted in the New York Times I think two Sundays ago in an interesting piece about the media and how the media a bets Trump how it is complicit in some ways it has been in his rise and will it play that role again in 2020 and you said too often we cover presidential elections you've covered many of them as spectacle and we need history we need perspective in context to the extent that you followed the Russia Russia Gate story do you feel that more history more context more perspective would be a value well you're kinda asked first of all and I do want to emphasize that I want Steve to do most of the talking here but in direct answer to your question that context in perspective is should always be the goal of any journalist at any level what happens particularly in today's environment where there's a deadline every nanosecond and they battle to get a you know be first with something so you can get the first take and get all the feeds and all that creates a new set of pressures this is not an excuse I don't think there are any excuses but I don't know of any journalists practicing today anywhere near what we'll call the top level of journalism yeah that hasn't made the mistake probably many times over of neglecting to pause take a breath and add the context and perspective I do think it's missing no direct answer your question to try to talk about the current events as much as we can that so much of the reporting and and let me pause and saying I think some of the greatest investigative reporting of my lifetime has been done on it on the Trump administration going footnoting of Steve's point that he thinks it's a way out of context and perspective but answer your question context and perspective is particularly important in covering an election campaign all of us and again I include myself in it we start out every campaign and we're starting out this campaign talked about the need for context and perspective and less about the spectacle that about the policies that put forward but with the with the pressure to meet as I say a deadline I'm not optimistic even about my own work but as news consumers I think with the public paying attention to who at least tries to put things in context and perspective now part of Steve's argument of in his book is that this is really missing when it comes to the allegations against President Trump and those in his administration and the whole Watergate business but contacts and perfecter has to apply to almost everything when Steve makes the I will call it the allegation perhaps he'd want to use the word charge about Intel gate that also requires some context and perspective which is one of the things Steve still tries to persuade it to to provide in the book is first of all he makes the point which a lot of people are either not aware of it or haven't paid enough attention that he Steve Cohen believes and he believes he has evidence and witness testimony to make it up that there has been a widespread conspiracy in our intelligence operations to make the political and international narrative in one direction and to give context in perspectives of that one has to listen to both sides and all sides and part of Steve's point is so far in his opinion up to know it's been almost all one way I don't necessarily agree with that but there's enough in it right to give me pause and to say we should stop and question ourselves those doesn't impress Steve I mean maybe at this point just briefly you might explain Intel gate I think back to history and though we don't want to do too much history I our former Washington editor Chris Hayes 10 years ago wrote a piece about the Church Committee and for those of you who don't remember was the bipartisan Senate committee to investigate intelligence abuses and the committee to some extent then tell me if I'm wrong was partly fueled by sy Hersh is reporting in the New York Times others and you probably covered that committee I'm struck these days by how liberal progressive friends valorize the intelligence community putting aside in tollgate which Steve will explain because I too I'm skeptical about the full extent of what Steve describes but I think skepticism is an order and I worry that there is kind of scrambled upside down alice in wonderland' politics that's emerged because I'd call it Trump derangement syndrome which I can understand because he's so odious but it shouldn't lead people to nullify their first principles but Steve tell us briefly how you see in tailgate because it is at the core and it is one of the most controversial parts of your book and it's relevant I think as we wait for the Muller report as we see what unfolds well in the book in tailgate I've obviously made a play on words from Russia gate to intelligence gate and I'll tell you how I came on this you all know this so-called steel dossier right you all heard about it this former British if he is really former intelligence agent who was posted in Moscow and had a big Russia profile over the years was hired it said to put together negative things about Trump's relationship with Russia so because I have some Russian expertise I began to look into this and the first thing I discovered the documents about 30 or 40 pages long there are so many mistakes in it that it doesn't seem like the mistakes that Russian intelligence would make I mean they had people alive who were dead and people who were in positions that they hadn't held but anybody can make a mistake like that but I did come to conclusion that there was nothing in this document that suggested it to come from Russian sources because that was Steele's claim that he had this network that were forming then I asked myself another question if Putin is really the horrible master of bloodthirsty ruthless master of the Kremlin he said to be I don't think he is how could anybody in the Kremlin knowing allegedly that Putin favored Trump in the election allegedly I'm actually not sure that's true either there's a question mark how could any ranking intelligence officials enter around the Kremlin defy Putin and abet an anti-trump cause in America they were putting certainly their careers and their families well-being at risk so then we were told by the guy who hired steel that still had paid these people so I thought well maybe Russians need money but then later Simpson the guy who hired steel testified to Congress that still hadn't been paid and no none of his sources had been paid so I was left with a document and by the way this is the document on which our own intelligence sources base their own so-called assessment that this document had little validity for a working Astoria and we often get documents written in a certain period either published or in an archive we can't just accept the document because it's a document you or I can write a document tonight and dump it in an archive and some historian wouldn't know we were kidding it'll have authenticity I couldn't find any authenticity to this steel dossier and then when you trace its history the hands of John Brennan and British intelligence were all over the origins not only of the document of Steel himself so I began to ask what role did our intelligence services play in these allegations that Trump was a kind of puppet of the Kremlin and let me end by saying that I would never make this as a flat statement it's a question and I think what I I think I titled the thing in tailgate or Russia gate where the question mark but since nobody was asking the question nobody had done the legwork I thought very important to raise the question and all I can say is that since then the behavior of the FBI and the and the CIA have become to say the least more and more peculiar as we learn more things about what the FBI was doing so many people have been fired from the FBI for one reason or another last point about history so Katrina being much younger than my so nonetheless remembers as the keeper of the liberal progressive flame in America there was a time her lifetime to when liberals and progressives were deeply suspicious of the American intelligence agencies including the FBI including so you all sitting out there remember this even if we think it to be true we have to ask how did it happen that liberals and progressives today are embracing the FBI in the CIA in their war against Trump that's a historical question how do we get from there to here one explanation is the loathing for Trump I understand that but I don't think it's explanation enough I mean liberals have come a long way from wanting the church committee from wanting to expose abuses I mean the CIA was running sassa Nation plots we learned this in the church you covered this with church committee right well you maybe you can say something about it my memory is not that great but we've come a very very long way as a as a kind of mainstream liberal and light and democratic society from having a healthy skepticism about what our intelligence services were doing to embracing them as sponsz of wisdom about Trump I mean there's loathing for Trump justify that transformation and when Trump's gone the intelligence services will still beat her so let me have we empowered them have we enabled them I guess a question worth asking I don't know the answer for sure let me let me ask a question which speaks to your knowledge of Russia today and its configuration of power and politics but we hear a lot about Russian oligarchs a Legg Deripaska is in the news a lot I think that just the other day just last week a Senate vote to drop sanctions on this Russian aluminum oligarch was widely seen as a gift to Deripaska and by association to Putin just how close are all of these Russian oligarchs like Deripaska to Putin because it's constant theme through line in the reporting point well I the so-called Russian oligarchs which means as it means in in the English language an oligarch being a person who uses political power to make money and uses money to gain political power and operate at very high levels often not in a way beneficial to society in general we have oligarchs every country has its oligarchs but Russia created very rapidly a very nasty oligarchy in the beginning of about eight or nine people in the 1990s and it's grown into an elite the reality is is you cannot be an oligarch in Russia today unless Putin says it's okay to be an oligarch in Russia today in this story I mean if he wants your steel company he can't find ways to take it away from you and there are many cases and we know we have personal acquaintances who have lost their businesses to Putin who gave it to another oligarch so there were Yeltsin's oligarchs in the 90s now there's Putin's oligarchs so what does it mean to be close to Putin we know you all know this name Deripaska it's hard to recognize because it's hard to pronounce andrey but he's in the front page of the times daily because allegedly trump wanted to drop the sanctions against his company and this shows that was it good at that he's Pro Putin or something the reality is is that the aluminum makers all over the world protested the sanctions on Deripaska aluminum company called Rostov I think which I believe to be the biggest in the world because it uh Turley gutted the aluminum market made it extremely unstable so what's this guy's name munchkin or Michigan was getting all these complaints from from Europeans secretaries magician nurse whatever it was he was getting these complaints not from pro-putin people but from the big capitalists of Europe that they were they were doing damage to the European aluminum market a marketing who knew aluminum or aluminium as a gardening and turns out to be a really big business so Deripaska who owns this big company was in the middle of it so it's a problem for Putin was he supposed to do about this I mean he cleared personally he does not like Deripaska he's humiliating him in public on national television at least twice for things he said he doesn't like him it's a crime the media has this formula now Trump's lawyer Michael Brown a block I have a block about all these Cohen's made Cowan made a phone call in Moscow to a person who's close to the Kremlin as the person who studied Russia all my life I have no idea what that means to be close to the Kremlin the Kremlin houses what's called the presidential administration it has 2,500 employees Putin sits at the top it would be hard not to be close to one of those 2,500 people if you moved over we would call Beltway Society in Moscow so this is not a meaningful indictment or analysis to me Trump's relations with Russia I see them not as suspicious but it's comical his people didn't have a clue what there were they were doing and what they were trying to do was build a Trump Hotel in Moscow so I asked myself and I'll stop on this and I I didn't vote for Trump and I'm not gonna vote for him again I don't want impeachment I think these things should be decided by people who voted he mentioned vote him out and that's the way I prefer things but consider this thought for X number of years a long time Trump wanted to build a flagship hotel condo operation in Moscow and he wanted to be the biggest building in Europe because that's the way he thinks during these 13 to 14 years virtually every International Hotel er right Marriott shared and ritz-carlton has built in Moscow Trump was never able to build what kind of collusion is this unless it's so cunning they had a plan okay we're not gonna let trump bill but instead we're gonna make him our agent then I'll have cover deniability because he never built in Moscow but Trump really exerted a lot of effort including that beauty pageant remember that thing took to Moscow and they they were like the Keystone Cops they didn't know phone numbers they called public phone numbers of Putin secretary out of a press secretary said hi we'd like to build a hotel in Moscow and they said well why don't you call a real estate agent there and I mean they they I mean that was basically what's going on I don't see anything sinister in it but you know the Russian oligarchs are a powerful force international there's a lot of money I read the other day and I don't mean to defame the man I'm sure he's a wonderful man but who's the head of Starbucks Howard Schultz so he announced he may run for president correct correct and maybe be a great president I'm not sure which parties know but it mean I like Starbucks was an independent independent yeah so with a coffee party might might my daughter Alexander is sitting in the front row is a fan of Starbucks and my other daughters of fan of Starbucks but occasionally they're drifting toward ducking dunking doughnuts I'm told it's a it's a whole subculture I don't know but the guy who's the head of Starbucks sits at the head of a franchise that probably has 200 outlets in Russia now you can't do any business coffee hotel or aluminum in Russia without having an oligarch as a partner that's a reality so Starbucks has flourished in Russia by having a hierarchical partners I don't object to this they are now Russia's businessmen but if this guy runs is this going to be raises a question that he's had business with Russia not known to be a question in today's environment let me interrupt you for one second I'm done I'm in just a minute Katrina has a long list of questions we don't want to get to but I want to cut to the what for a lot of people is a chase you've said that you didn't vote for Trump you don't plan to vote for Trump you don't consider yourself a Trump fan of things but if he offers to make me ambassador I'm might reconsider that vote well no he won't I'm not a dogmatist I wouldn't give up your day job just yeah but by any reasonable analysis much of what you've written including much of what you're written in this book which I've said I hope people will read is by any reasonable analysis is open to the interpretation that at every turn you give Putin and Trump the benefit of the doubt but you don't give the intelligence agencies and for that matter of the press the benefit of the doubt let's get down to it that can you explain based on your experience in Russian coming right up to the present hour what strikes an overwhelming majority of Americans even many who support Trump this situation in which President Trump never has said anything that was critical of Putin and that every opportunity says something good about him it seems to use the Texas phrase passing well strange that he just consistently won't say anything critical of Putin and is hell on wheels for anybody who does so do you have any idea why that is because it does lead to a lot of people saying listen this is this is not proof positive that Trump has become whether he intended to or not a quote puppet of Putin or a protege of Putin but it certainly raises a lot of questions with a lot of people so let's address that's right folks all right so I mean I think you raised a question that's absolutely fundamental and here I would say that if it's true that Trump has never criticized Putin publicly though all this praise these lavished on Putin allegedly I've looked up he's basically said he was a really strong leader which i think is true he is a really strong leader but stop and think what mrs. Clinton said about Putin when she was seeking the nomination he said he was like Hitler and he had no soul now you tell a Russian and Putin gets reporters that they have no soul that's about the lowest thing you can say to her and my thought about her saying that she just disqualified herself as a presidential candidate in my mind for this reason because I believe the dangers with Russia and our relationship are existential and I want a president who can deal with the Kremlin in a way that every president since Eisenhower has with a free hand in negotiators negotiate us away from war to have a person who wants to be president going around saying Putin is like Hitler and has no soul okay she could make amends had she won we know politicians say things they backed me but that was disqualified home for me but she lost she's not president yeah and we do have a president who has not said anything not only did not say anything even remotely approaching that but as best I can figure out he's never he's never breathed a single syllable against Putin but I'm not sure what we want our presidents to say about the people who sit in the Kremlin let me give you an example from our lifetime but your memory may be sharper than mine every president let's leave Franklin Delano Roosevelt who met with Stalin but that was wartime so as Churchill said in wartime you make a partnership with the devil let's leave that aside every American president I can think of no exceptions since Eisenhower since the 50s met with the leader of the Kremlin because it was thought to be existential in light of nuclear weapons that's a factual statement it's also more or less a factual statement that except for our crazies the John Birch Society we Republicans and Democrats alike said please go meet and make us safer we empowered them to do that I don't recall any of those presidents so they're probably exceptions defaming the Kremlin leader in this diplomatic process even though and here's the paradox they were communist most of them with actual blood on their hands khrushchev from eisenhower dealt with three times said I've got blood on my hands up to my elbow from the Stalin era right but I don't recall any American presidents who wanted to do business diplomatic business with the Kremlin defaming the leader I call that diplomacy and I was not used to personally an American would be president though Rubio did it all the time to calling the leader of the Kremlin with whom that person would have to deal conceivably in a Cuban Missile Crisis like situation defaming them publicly I just thought that she was the anomaly not Trump and if I was advising Trump and he said what am I supposed to say to all these people who say I never say anything nasty about Putin I say well I wouldn't want him to marry into the family and then just go on I mean but I don't see making a cause out of this because I see it as diplomatic and in diplomacy we might well need I'll end on this we're eyeball-to-eyeball with the Russians in Ukraine in Syria and in Georgia that's three times the Cuban crystal the Cuban Missile Crisis it's easy to imagine a direct conflict we are gonna have to ask Trump to save us whether we like him or not is it gonna help for him going around saying Putin's a butcher and kills people and he's like Hitler where where's our security in that so maybe I'm overly obsessed by the dangerous relationship between the United States and Russia and prepared to give Trump a pass on this one maybe that's my problem I think I mean I do think Trump has an affinity for it's like springtime for strong men with I mean he is you know he doesn't say bad things about Duterte occasionally arid Juan but he does seem to favor those kinds of leaders but I I do think putting aside the personalities many of you may know that the national defense strategy of the United States is no longer to privilege or lead with the global war against terror but to make China and Russia are our adversaries they are the existential threats to America according to this national defense strategy so I wanted as Steve I mean the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is treated as a real possibility in the US media almost everyday subject of constant speculation recent headlines how real do you think this possibility is I mean is there a real threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine well Ukraine's been a catastrophe for Putin politically and internationally so the last thing he wants is an escalation of the of these proxy wars going on on the other hand and people here might object to this particularly interview with ties to Ukraine the regime in Kiev is a provocation regime it's looking to provoke a war with Russia because it thinks that NATO in America or going to take its and embrace look at the stunts do you all remember November 25th that happened to be my birthday when it happened and I think we just arrived in Moscow that's right November when there's a shootout between Ukrainian and Russian gunboats in the Sea of Azov off the Black Sea remember that yes I mean I looked at it on video 20 times I read all the press accounts 100% Ukraine provoked that the rules for passing through that narrow strait are centuries-old you have to take on a Russian pilot to go through the Straits you have to inform the Russians I don't remember whether it's one day or two days in advance that you're coming the Ukrainians didn't do any of this they were looking to provoke an episode and they got it and now it's become an example of Putin's aggression how was it aggression what's aggression I mean if a car comes across the George Washington Bridge in a lane going the long long way that person is going to be stopped who's the aggressor here so I worry about provocations we know from sy Hersh or we think we know from ciphers it's some of the gas attacks blamed on Assad may not have been the case I don't know I don't have the scientific knowledge but professor or Theodore Postol writes for the nation occasionally yeah seems to support this I mean we're living in an exceedingly dangerous world with short fuses where a lot of people out there would like to right light the fuse so it's not just Russia and the United States who could get us into trouble there are a lot of people with agendas that are not in anybody's interest except their own so a provocation would Russia Russia send more troops across the border into done boss it's possible Crimea is settled Crimea was historically Russian administrative Lee accidentally it was Ukrainian it is now Russian and in our lifetime it will always be rushed into territory on the other hand with good will there's no reason why you crane shouldn't have equal access to Crimea but you know politics prevent that now so I want to echo something Dan said about you are a professor you know your history so I think one of the great values of this book is you bring to bear history so that you know every night we got the breaking news there's always breaking news but you bring history to bear so a question from the audience it's been reported the Trump doesn't allow notes records of his meetings with Putin what's up with that good question so the person we should ask do you all know the name Jack Matlock he was ambassador to the Soviet Union you know him personally you know Chuck Jack is now working away down in Durham North Carolina or on his farm in Tennessee but he's very engaged Jack posted a few things on his Facebook that says that this allegation that Trump didn't follow procedure with Putin isn't correct that in his own personal experience he knows of many meetings or at least enough meetings where presidents have met only with their translator so here's one in our lifetime though to amend that and I will in a second which you and I remember well many of you remember Trump and Reagan met Trump and Reagan Gorbachev and Reagan met in Finland Iceland Iceland in Heisler I've got some anger don't worry but met in in Reykjavik Iceland and February 9 no October 1986 Reagan by then was aging and his age didn't want him to meet alone with Gorbachev who was like 55 yeah bouncing around right you remember that even you looked at me and said guys he was kind of young from oviya leader what's going on Steve does that matter and we had a discussion they didn't matter that he was younger you remember all that right but Reagan's days were worried because Reagan was and we know he later had problems they were worried about him along with Gorbachev but they went in there with their translators and they came out and they said to all their aides or we're waiting waiting we've decided to abolish all nuclear weapons and the aides go I told you not to let him go in there alone with Gorbachev but it turned out something interesting that both men had a deep loathing and hatred of nuclear weapons for different biographical reasons that's why Reagan came up with this idea of a shield that would protect us Star Wars Star Wars so they said you can't do that let's have another meeting with aides but what did they do one year later one year later for the first time in history Reagan and Gorbachev abolished an entire category of nuclear weapons the so-called intermediate-range ones would you remember because we were covering the story that the Europeans were very worried about because they flew under radar they flew flies fast it was Russia was on the European continent with its intermediate-range ones we had ours the SS something or other in Europe that was the first act ever and remains so today of nuclear abolition and it occurred partly because these two guys met alone without their aides saying no no no you can't do that so there are different cases Jack Matlock himself then he says for the next meeting where they were gonna find to this idea was asked to be a note-taker but there was no Russian note-taker so and here's another case that's a stunning I get this from Jack Matlock but it's in the history books Nixon when he met with Brezhnev and Nixon was very suspicious of the American intelligence services which were against Nixon's date on did not use an American and translator at all stop and think what I'm saying Nixon used Brezhnev translator and now we talk about why do we need history because what Michael Flynn did general Flynn did who he almost went he may still go to prison for it because he lied about it and he's been ruined I don't like Flint I don't like his views I don't like anything about him but when he called the Russian ambassador after Trump was elected and said don't do anything radical about these new sanctions that Obama has leveled on you we will sort that out when we take office is exactly what almost every American president elect not president president like has had his national security guy do make a call to the Russians and tell him to chill until we take office Matlock did it for Reagan Michael McFaul get it for Obama this is a tradition so what Flynn did was normal was necessary now while I lied to the FBI about it maybe because he felt that his loyalty was to his president and now I don't know why he lied about it but what he did was right and normal and customary and something we should want so this is where history is really important to know the prehistory of these episodes and they would less scandalous when you know the history so two or three more questions but just a reminder copies of war with Russia question mark available for sale will be signing afterwards this this question goes I think to the nature that how people view both Putin this Russia the politics what we hear about the killings of journalists of control of the political landscape but does anything go on in Russia without Putin knowing about it well I mean we always thought that since Stalin was probably among the very very certainly among the very very worst desperate of 20th century history and his terror swept away millions of people mother's father's daughters sons that nothing in Russia under Stalin could possibly take place without his all-pervasive police knowing it but it turns out that people continued to have sex in various ways and have private thoughts and even write private thoughts down and hide them away and somehow under the repression carry on with their law I was in when Stalin died it all popped out lots of kids lots of literature lots of movies that had all been stuffed in the drawer right so I'll give you an exaggerated reply to that how would we characterize Putin's political system today most political scientists and I no longer consider myself a political scientist but the literature on Russia among professional American political scientists has a consensus and that is the Putin regime or system is a soft authoritarian one that's the expression that political science means now what does that mean you'd ask these people what's the soft authoritarian there's no terror censorship barely exists the best American correspondent working Russia today in my opinion and maybe really the only good one really first-rate is Fred we're of the Christian Science Monitor and I haven't noticed that Fred wrote today though fred is no fan of Putin that Russia is probably more prosperous and freer Russians than they have ever been in their history today now you know that's like saying dan and I are short people compared to to a seven-foot center of the next maybe I mean what kind of what kind of generalization of that but I think it's probably true but it's not due to President to Putin this was created first by Robert Shaw then during the Yeltsin years after the Soviet Union but Putin has embedded he hasn't shut it down and we ought to care just for humanitarian reasons that Russians ordinary people not privileged people not oligarchs but folks are probably better off today than they have ever been in Russian history that doesn't mean they're it's really great we want to exchange lives with them but we all live within our own skin we live within our own lives our own societies and if you look at Russia in terms of where Russia's been not clear where it's going but where it's been most Russians feel themselves better off than their parents and grandparents were and that is why no matter how mad people are at Putin today about raising the pension age he still has a bedrock 60% support in the country it's not 80 anymore pensions wiped that out but I mean that really tells you something like him or not and it should count for something but that maybe is just my special empathy because that's been so many years interacting with Russia did you I was I was gonna ask both of you if I could have Russia gate whatever that means means different things it means the view that Russia meddled in our election or it could mean Kremlin put Trump in the White House but Russia gates going to eventually end in some way I mean we're all waiting for Muller's report we're waiting to learn more about what we don't know so it's going to have a legacy a question to both of you what do you think it's Lego legacy will be I mean after Trump after Putin they're not immortal can we envision and imagine what it means for the future of our politics the legitimacy of our elections has our elections has been questioned our democracy so I just ask you to think beyond this moment but in the context of what we read and hear about every day the Russia Gates story well are you most interested in Professor Cohen's judgment on that but I would say this that and I've tried to remind myself of it because it's very hard do particularly in the hyper-energetic news environment which among other things but this is time for us to be very steady and very patient plus/minus are hard to tell mother knows a hell of a lot more than anybody including myself who's been talking about it on cable television or writing about it and I consider it to be a fact I think Steve has a different view that the Russian so that's a broad general phrase but the Russians made an effort to muck around in our election campaign what we don't know and we can't know until the least model comes out with his report and his report is made public which is only uncertain which is a whole other subject by the time we don't know whether a anybody anywhere near to the top of the Trump campaign was actively involved in that in any way and the most important thing is we don't know whether Trump himself was I don't like the word collusion I think it's too big a word the question is was was there or was there not a conspiracy that included high-ranking members of the Trump campaign and the early stages administration and/or the President himself were they directly in bother conspiracy now there's a lot of circumstantial indications and a lot of hypotheticals about connecting the so-called Dawn's event but I could come back to harder it is we do be study we need to be patient and wait until Mother's report comes out and hope and pray that is it's public because short of that all of this speculation including some of my own always wonder and worry about what happened what didn't happen is destructive to our democratic process because it undercuts the public's confidence in the integrity of our election system now I'm setting aside the whole there's a whole argument well that was the Russians that was Putin I'll put that in quotation marks aim but already this damage been done to the public's believe that in supports as humanly possible to make it so our elections have integrity and that much of that damage has already been done we can spend the rest of the night talking about whether the press has the biggest responsibility are the intelligent to me whatever but much of the damage had already been done and there's often the case with severe damage it can't be repaired immediately so looking forward however this turns out whatever the results of the MoMA investigation the final history's judgment on Trump I think we're going to be dealing with the consequences of this period for a very long time i I was just gonna say I mean we came out of the midterms in an interesting way it seemed to me Dan were which doesn't mean that the Muller investigation isn't important and should not be protected but Russia gate didn't play a role in the mid in the midterms I mean it wasn't on people's minds and Gallup even had a poll showing 57% of Americans wanted better relations with Russia and that voter suppression was something that more voters worried about in terms of the legitimacy integrity so I guess you know gerrymandering I hope that what comes out of this moment might be a real project which should have happened after the selection of the president in 2000 an integrity election project but Steve I'm sorry what is your thing Steve bats clean-up on this cleanup I think you have the last before we go to sign I don't know why dad knowing that I'm from Kentucky never mention my jump shot and it seems to me I didn't know you had one look I I have a lot of problems because of where I come from dealing with all this and I always fall back on history and maybe this doesn't matter but Dan says we know that Russia mucked around in our elections we do we do know that and like the good captain in Casablanca I'm shocked shocked shocked because the two countries have mucked around in each other's elections ever since Woodrow Wilson sent American troops to intervene in the Russian Civil War in 1918 before or to give a more modern example the Clinton administration went beyond all decency in helping Yeltsin Boris Yeltsin get reelected in 1996 I mean beyond any decency including a 10 billion dollar IMF loan so Yeltsin could finally play pay pensions and salaries sending professional American political operators to encamped in the presidential hotel and run the campaign and we were so proud of that that Showtime made a movie about it called spinning or saving Boris I think and Time magazine when Yeltsin won ran a cover with Yeltsin dressed up as Yankee Doodle Dandy wrapped in an American flag with a banner reading Yanks to the rescue we were very pleased that we got Yeltsin or helped get him reelected so we are surprised that Russians are mucking around in our elections I didn't say we were surprised I'm saying we should be concerned okay so that then brings me now the historians gone I've just context it fair enough what I do not know and what I too would worry about is what the degree of this and nature of this was in 2:16 was it really not run-of-the-mill something quite different leaving open the question of the role of social media but I've never understood that if the Russians were so clever in figuring out where to direct their social media why Clinton's boy geniuses couldn't figure this out too and get her elected I mean what makes the Russians cleverer about American social I mean I just couldn't figure this out but I will accept the question did something happen that really now is not in the historical pattern even taking to account what Clinton did for Yeltsin because he did it publicly I mean that was not surreptitious on your campus Republic and all I say in the book is and it's not all I say because in this environment it's a lot is I have looked and looked and looked and I can find no evidence of anything larger and more suspicious well wait but but but but I may not be looking in the right places and it may be that my evaluation that purported evidence that appears almost every day in the New York Times I don't find it persuasive maybe I've even developed a bias and a stake in my own argument I don't rule that out but I would say and this is my final word tonight this is why I really am worried if we prevent Trump from doing diplomacy with Russia that we say he can't do it because he's an agent of Russia and even though we see crises and potential Cuban missle like crises around the world today and we say we're not going on Trump do it in such a crises who's going to do it Congress gonna do it the new york times going to do it there's nobody to do it and if nobody does it it means war with russia and we don't want to test the theory that war with russia could easily slide into nuclear war we don't want to test that that at all we don't want to get anywhere near that line and that's why I think this Russia gate and I call it in the book such has become the number one threat to American national security the number one threat we can hate on trump all we want but until we vote him out we have to entrust him to keep us safe if a crisis like this occurs that's my bottom line now maybe it's alarmist maybe it's extremist maybe it comes from too much Russia on my brain maybe but maybe not maybe not and we don't want to find out so I want to thank Dan and I want to thank Steve for this most civil of discussions it is rare in terms of Russia to have sexual discussions and oppression you

Channel: 92nd Street Y

Views: 47,428

Rating: 4.774436 out of 5

Keywords: 92Y, 92nd Street Y, war, russia, Stephen F. Cohen, Dan Rather, news, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, cold war, United States of America, America, USA, US, American history, US history, Vladimir Putin, historian, War with Russia?, Russiagate, world politics, politics, journalist, journalism, The Nation, US politics

Id: tm5clHYTOhA

Length: 64min 46sec (3886 seconds)

Published: Mon Jun 17 2019