Whos to say out the gate that new ideas are not needed in our debate and finally i want to echo needas concluding words about people , its about democracy and id introduce the term resiliency. To kind of complete the thought that i opened earlier. One of the most exhaustively written about and i think also exhausting in effectiveness policy lanes is that of punishing bad guys. We have been in search for a quartercentury or more of tools that will work to punish bad guys, whether that bad guy Vladimir Putin or al qaeda and we go back and forth between overuse of sanctions and overuse of diplomatic finger wagging and what is enormously refreshing and if i may say so fundamentally george s kennan about what nina has written is that it is selfcritical about the way that we are not resilient in the face of challenges that are going to be there whether theres a Vladimir Putin behind them or there isnt so i find that very refreshing. Its an unfortunate description of an unfortunate reality but it isnt that since very refreshing so i want to give the floor to asha and then we will. Took questions from jane and questions from our audience out there. Thank you matt. I wanted to just pick up where you left off in terms of why this book is really important to americas understanding of this problem which i think is stymied for 3 main reasons i would say in this book really addresses all three of those. The first is that as nina points out in her book, this is not americas first rodeo with disinformation coming from russia. This was the kgbs tempo. The house had hearings about this in 19 need to. Weve looked at this but largely with the fall of the soviet union we thought it was all over and i think thats what ninas book does is it goes through starting soon after putin comes to power and how methodically the kgbs tactics and methods have been practiced, refined, Incorporated New technologies and basically as we stood by they been practicing and theyve been finding ways to make this more and more effective as it crept closer and closer to the United States and it literally caught us unaware because we stop seeing russia as a serious threat. In 2008 i think for 2012 obama made fun of romney for saying russia wasa threat. I think what nina chose also with this kind of, our blinders on and what she mentioned about russia not being constrained by an ideology is that it actually gives russia much more flexibility in terms of putting its tentacles into American Society which is something that was very constraining for it during the cold war. We have a natural prophylactic because we were in an ideological struggle so there were only really fringe elements that could be receptive to communist efforts whereas now we see theyve made inroads into those fringe right and the left so i think its this kind of global iteration, practicing all all these methods and we see in these case is if elements had shown up in the United States in each of these countries theres some aspect of it thats manifested here and its an important lesson for us. The second thing and this goes along with why we had our blinders on americans, i guess ill say here i went into the fbi in 2002 right after 9 11 and it had been all terrorismall the time. We just dont think of a threat it it doesnt involve blowing things up, dead bodies. Is somebody trying to light issue on fire in anairplane . Thats when we start taking drastic measures. This i think for americans, we are very nacve aboutthis. Its hard for americans toget their mind around. This is also partly about the american psyche because we havent practiced upon my these case studies where we develop a certain understanding of it. Americans fundamentally dont get it. We think of war, we have very clear dichotomies in america. War is terrorism or no threat , we have these very clear ideas and this Information Warfare really turns this on its head. And i think that these case studies help illuminate why this is very dangerous. Why this is a threat even if you dont see something blow up or its not an explosion orSomething Like that. And i think related to that and this is the third thing, i think americans are 90 about the idea of information as a weapon. This i think is partly a good thing and its because our first amendment, our constitution offers so much space for robust disagreement. Ourfreedom of the press. So weve been conditioned as americans to think of speech and information as a net positive and the marketplace of ideas, the way you combat bad speech is with goodspeech. And we havent fully understood how the marketplace of ideas doesnt necessarily translate into the Digital Space and this whole idea of information as a weapon is really something were just getting our mind around and nina does a fantastic job of explaining why this is dangerous and why this can translate, the flash mob piece that you described in your first chapter about how information can translate into behavior where people can become puppets and act out on the police that there being, theyre consuming. I think its a very important lesson for an american audience tounderstand. So i think you kind it all these blind spots, these places of ignorance that i think american audiences have when it comes to this issue, nina and i hope we touch on all of these because it can be hard to getyour mind around. I think its easy to say i can check my sources. Whats the big deal . Whyis this a problem we should address . So thanks a lot, i learned a lot from your book and ill admit im not a person is an expert in these areas and also someone who is affiliated with the media, our media does not do a good job also what is happening abroad. We are incredibly ignorant of whats happening abroad so you shine a light on why thats important to us and why thats happening now s thank you asha. The goal if we can for the next 15 minutes or so is to give people a bit of a teaser of the important takeaways of the book and i think the single most important one to start with is from all of these case studies and from the history that asha referred to, what is it that we can learn that we should have known as early as 2016 but really that we should know in 2020 and maybe before 2028 as your conclusion suggests. Theres two things that i think stand out among these case studies and they werent necessarily things i knew i was going to encounter when i was out there doing the reporting. The first is the homegrown element to all the operations that i detail. Often americans talk about fake news as if it is stuff that is just purely cut and dry fake and i had a conversation about my editor about the subtitle of the book and i didnt love that fake news was in it but its a signpost for people but the terminology is wrong. The best disinformation is grounded in real visceral feelings and the best operations use these homegrown actors to get them out there so in estonia in 2007 russia was able to manipulate the russian ethnic population in estonia in order to foment unrest. In order to carry out Cyber Attacks from abroad on estonia and in order to undermine this newly transatlantic countries future in the block. Little did russia know this would become estonias brand as the defender of cyberspace and an e country so that was flipped on its head but in all the other case studies, in poland using the 2010 plane crash that killed the president using antimuslim sentiment in order to foment discord and in the netherlands in 2016 when the netherlands was voting on a referendum for ukraines Association Agreement using the dutch kind of skepticism against the ukraine not only to undermine the unity but undermine ukraines support in the Euro Atlantic Community so all these things are preexisting fissures and they are brought forth by homegrown actors and asha touched on the example in the first chapter of the book which was published as an excerpt by Politico Magazine but it was about a flash mob in front of the white house in 2017 when a leftleaning had been supported by russian actors to do this flash mob and get a large amount of attendees through facebook advertising. So homegrown actors is a huge part of it but all these countries that have a somewhat successful response as i noted in the excerpt that i read, they all address peoples participation in this equation. They address education and they address journalism and the media as a public good and theyre investing in these longterm Generational Solutions to help people navigate the information environment they are in, the information ecosystem is rapidly degrading rather than just playing rat patrol and trying to eliminate fact attacks and bad actors online and the third theme i think is that we cannot fight this information coming from abroad when we are using it ourselves. I saw this playing out in georgia when i was there during the protests that broke out after a russian parliamentarian appeared in georgia and parliament, a strange unorthodox conference they were having here and the georgian people were not having that and yet the ruling party there, georgia was using disinformation in order to read a different narrative about what had happened. Its happening in poland, where seeing that in the lead up to their election and its happening in the United States as well. Our National Security doctrine and people across the government, photon both sides of the aisle to leave this is an issue and this is a threat and get all that good work is undermined by things happening unfortunately in the executive branch and narratives being spread from the white house itself sometimes and that is very disturbing to me. We cannot fight this information coming from abroad and now its coming not only from russia but china and venezuela if we are using it on our own people and that is the biggest warning as we head into this election cycle. Lets stop for a minute on your last point and i want to bring in ashaon this as well. The first, and you get a broader assessment of where the United States is maybe successful . The picture sounds bleak but are there any areas where we are doinga good job as a matter of policy and on the other side of the equation , it may very well be true that the government shoots itself in the foot in terms of response or theres not enough political will but what about the areas in which maybe just the phenomenon of government is the problem, its not peoples distrust of government, that cant just be about this current Political Movement that that movements that around for 30 years and people feel like theres an elite ball of people to address their agenda in National Security turns in washington and try to control everything and therefore the opposite of what they say as a good chance of being true, this conspiracy theorist crowd if you will so i wanted to invite you to comment on where were successful and unsuccessful and what government shouldnt have a role or cant have a role in. Asha, what if you go first and ill build on what yousay. I think there is a sense that the government should be solving this problem and ironically i think the government is really very ill placed to solve the problem even if there were political will which as nina has noted there isnt. When i was in but because i worked what are called perception management cases and these are foreign intelligence operations that are trying to engage in propaganda and disinformation and theyre difficult to work because theres no punishment that you can really put. You cant censor them. You might threaten them with foreign agents registration act but what countries like russia took advantage of is our open society and our free press. I think compounding the problem is just a lack of technological study among members of congress. This is like, theyre very , theyre older. And theyre not necessarily using these technologies or they dont only understand the model so theyre not going to be in a great place to regulate them and even regulation cant keep up with the pace of technological change so it could become obsolete. What i will say about government response is that as an intelligence operation, the way that you neutralize this information is through exposure. In other words disinformation can only work if you are being duped into believing that the information is coming from say an organic source, a fellow american. If the flash mob, they think its their fellowprogressives that are putting it together. When you know the source of it it ceases to have the same power and in this way, i think this book i think things like the special counsels indictment of the russian nationals and the companies that were engaging in the social media influence operations, the exposure is very important cause that breaks down really the entire power of the operation. Thats what i would say i think the government is and i think you address this in your conclusion nina, we are if we were expecting the government to save us, its not going to happen. The government can engage in strong deterrent tactics as a foreignpolicy response. Against putin but as far as stopping the disinformation that is going to happen. This is about equipping the populace and matt, you mentioned an important thing i hope we get to which is also there needs to be a rebuilding of social trust among americans that will also act as a prophylactic. In countries where you have a lot, i think japan would be a difficult country to infiltrate with the disinformation because theyre a strong country with a lot of social trust among its citizens. So thats what i would say and nina im sure you have more to add. Ill get to some of the investments that i think we should be making and kind of the citizens oriented space as i call it but the price i think that its doing a good job is not awareness raising and kind of exposure elements but what asha was talking about is the department of homeland security, theyre doing a great job i think. They had an Interesting Campaign about how disinformation works related to pineapple on pizza and tried to hit people against each other based on whether or not they liked pineapple on their pizza just kind of a silly example that drew people in and explain to them how that discord is created online area its not necessarily about changing votes. Its about distracting us and creating that discourse. I hope to get more funding not only to do those sorts of campaigns but to protect our electoral infrastructure which is oneof their main jobs. Other parts of the government i think are suffering from being a bit silent and having too small a mandate essentially so the Global Engagement center at the state department, its impacted people there but they are focused on programming abroad which is great but were not repairing the fissures in our own society when we are just projecting outward. And thats something weve really not invested enough in red there are bills in congress unfortunately because theyve been politicized. They deal not only with transparency on social media such as the honest ads act but about education and awareness building and senator klobuchar as an Education Bill stuck in committee as well and its difficult with the way our federal Education System works. You cant tell states what to do but you can give them grants to develop this curriculum together with experts to implement it not only through our schools but to voting age populations as well for things like libraries as well as Civil Society organizations that are locally based in the state so thats something i would love to see and more investment in public media. One of the reasons i decided to read that expert is not just to pat myself on the back. But because today we have news that the us agency for global media with overseas voice of america and Radio Free Europe is tracking down even more on the freedom that the journalists there were enjoying and there was news that foreign journalists who work for those agencies will get their visas renewed at the end of their visas which i think is a shame and these are two vectors that our region, voice of america and rfp have a Huge Positive impact and a good Brand Association in our region and the fact that the government is turning to dismantle them at this moment is something that i feel really strongly about and i think is a real mistake so i would caution that for anyone who might be listening to dealing with that policy to revert back because i think those are jewels in the crown there. Their established and i know matt and i have both gone on voice of america programs recently and we do that because we know that reaches eagles ears and its worth investing in class go ahead please. I wanted to ask nina about her first point, two responses together. About russia exploiting fissures in these countries and one of the things that struck me about when i was reading your book is how in the weeds russia is with knowing its enemy. It understands that poland is different than estonia and it really knows what little cleavages to take and especially in the us. I just wanted, i was wondering, i was struck by your case study of poland and after the plane crash you mentioned one of the things russia did and it was a very simple move but it was so effective was that they wouldnt provide, they wouldnt provide thewreckage from the plane. Or anything and i saw this as an example of reflexive control. They just withheld this and they knew what would happen is it would foster conspiracy theories because you withhold the information and that itself would take on. So you dont mention reflexive control directly that it is something they do and theyre able to do it because they know exactly how their enemy will respond to the smallest action and im just wondering, if you could comment on it generally. That they are very methodical in that way in a way i dont think arm intelligence agencies are quite frankly and also how do we protect against that . Its almost like were complicit in the manipulation because the kind of advertise exactly what will push our buttons i guess. If i can have a question there as well, asha thank you for bringing this up because this is our board, three years running the world leading ink tank for regional studies and certainly the leading organization in the United States is that