Nato, former Russian Foreign minister and journalist sat down for the discussion at the council last month. Good morning. Thank you all for coming. We have a Wonderful Program for you this morning. I should mention, this is part of our series on internal developments in russia. We began with a session on dem og graph ee, this is on politics. Next month, we are doing a session on the russian economy, followed by session in april on Energy Segment in russia. We have a treat here. Wonderful alliance of speakers. I will not describe them expect to say shes a top notch journalist from moscow, has written a provocative, fascinating paper on russia politically. And ill turn it over. I want to extend gratitude for inviting me and asked me to write a paper. And thank you for coming for this event. Weave witnessing whats now in history, mussolini and franco spain and portugal. Theres not conspiracy in the story i am outlining. When Vladimir Putin has become the president , he brought with him a whole range of people from his old job, the kgb. Over the years in a period of 8 years, they staffed all levels of the government, upper levels of the administration. As a result, by 2008, almost 67 of all positions in the top layer of russian were occupied by the soviet union kgb, Army Officers and some people from the military intelligence group. By 2015 it became very vivid in the publics fear that the country is pretty much run by the people who grew up inside the soviet union political, or by their sons and daughters that have been witnessing information of the clan of people who are united by the common ground, by special code of ethics, by their understanding of what is right, what is wrong. Even by the inferior complex developed after soviet union collapsed and new russia came evolved. As a result, just to put it income pairtive, in 1999, announced Prime Minister putin as his successor, there were 46 of positions that were occupied by those the kgb grew. As i said, ten years later, the the number rose to 67 . The positions that people from the kgb had in 1989 when he was leader of the country. Obviously when you have this presentation of people from one institution in the office, layers of the government, they bring with them the Institutional Culture and bring with themselves their understanding of what is good and what is wrong in internal and external politics. They bring with themselves, you know, the instruments that they used and were useful back at the times when they were young and brave and strong and everything was pretty much for them career wise. Besides the numbers, theres also a clear cut wise in capacities to influence the internal politics. Once again, theres nothing special about russia in that respect. By the way, you know, i argue that this political culture models that argue that russia sees itself as special entity, as one with special mission of the world, therefore theres something very special about russia. However, from the political side, theres nothing special about russia. In fact from Political Science view, this kind of regime is very well known in south america and it was the famous argentina scientist that first coined this term bureaucratic authoritarianism. It is built on coalition of in case of south america, latin america, military, in case of russia, its people from the kgb, and bureaucrats providing the everyday operation. In that respect, nothing special, nothing new. What we are witnessing now in russia. In terms of all kinds of violence, thats definitive feature of that type of regime where the motion of privacy of the state interests are make this military, thats a definitive feature of that regime and thats what you see in russia. Since 2012 theres 8 fold rise of socalled terrorist cases that investigated and persecuted in russia. Three fold rise, nowadays substitution for the propaganda cases that existed back in soviet times. I am citing the paper, the research done. Theyre all for the university or the high school. And it was never published there. They were unable to publish there. They were unable to publish it anywhere but in my magazine, the new times. Most vividly, the rise of the activities as difficult is seen in these cases. As a result, ten governors and deputies to governors, the number now, 26 governments under criminal investigation and four governments are sitti governoe in jail awaiting trial. Inside the department of internal security, there has been created what was coined in russian media. At the same time, he has been when he was Prime Minister here, he helped to finance and create this very special department whose conducting investigations. Theres immense corruption in the russian federation. And many of those are under investigation has been involved in all kinds of illegal activity. The question is not the fact theyre in this, the question is how those that were investigated were chosen because you see that it is not just random choice. You clearly see all those were currency by then one time substitute for putin. All of them. And you know, the former governor who went to had, you know, problems with local, awaiting ten year sentence in jail. Now, what the future this brings to russia, i want to point to you that good and bad news. Good news is that personalistic type of regimes tend to be more unpredictable and more prone to all kind of, you know, war revenge with neighbors like happened in case of annexation of crimea or more in the eastern ukraine. The type of regimes are more stable, therefore it is much more difficult to expect positive change to answer questions with respect to specific regimes, here well just say theres one interesting feature we observe now among new russian nomenclature. Obviously those with offices in soviet times in their mid60s, some of them older than that, and they have their children who are also joined the ranks, many of them, joined ranks of top russian nomenclature. We call it, theres almost hereditary. These children of the kgb, they take over banks, state owned banks, corporations. Et cetera. Ten heads of state affiliated corporations led by the kgb. 25 agencies, head of agencies, governmental agencies or deputy head of government are led by the kgb. Talking about children, what is interesting about that is that many of them went to boarding schools in the west, and some of them went through the universities in the west. I dont want to imply that they necessarily observe the values of the western democracy. Well aware that a lot of parents prefer to started in United Kingdom or in United States. However, what is important, my theory, my hypothesis is that these children got education and got experience in the west, they wouldnt want to live in the closed i would think they like their children educated in the west because theyre pretty much aware of the level of education inside russia which unfortunately is not good, especially in terms of humanity and Political Science, just a disaster. They would like to have small children to go to boarding schools in switzerland and United Kingdom. They would like they would rather, you know, the knowledge that theyre making money in russia but prefer to be out of russia. They have property, real estate, et cetera. So as it was a case at the last decade of soviet union, i believe these in bringing change and Democratic Development or some signs of possibilities of Democratic Development in russia. I will stop here. I want briefly, theres a book i love the most. And thats i think that political scientists at large overlooked this. Called the old regime and french revolution. Talking about constitutional persistence, why nations fail is one of the latest that basically refers to the same problem of institutional in different countries, i believe that study of the french revolution is extremely applicable to the situation with failure of the democratic revolution in russia. I am convinced that though they have no inquiry of these, they work from the old regime, not only with conventions, but in even those very ideas which prompted our revolutionaries to destroy it. They used the old order for building up the new one. Thats exactly what happened in russia in 1990s. They used the old order for building up the new one. Now we are dealing with the consequences. Thank you. Mr. Minister, your comments. Thank you. I was known for being soft spoken. Usually criticized by the opposition for that. If you expect argument and fight here, you will be probably disappointed because when i entered in the room this morning, i said i like your research, and everyone that joined us came with the same opening verse. I like your research. Probably it will be a Mutual Admiration Society here, which i very much welcome because just occur to me that i just read the research and writings as a publicist about 30 years ago. Could you believe it . She was almost a child at that time. It was in moscow news, one of the newspapers, and from then on for 30 years i agree with everything she writes and says so that almost exhausts my comments. The only thing which i could add to that, this notion of authoritarian bureaucratic military. Security forces. It occurs to me it could be dated at least 30 years earlier. Maybe hundreds of years. Probably too general an observation. I think it was same in soviet union. Despite stalin was supposed to be single dictator which he was on one hand. On the other hand, he created or was promoted by new class which was actually the way of old bureaucracy, but at least peasants come to st. Petersburg and moscow. A lot of their habits and ways effected the course of the soviet union. My impression is that this kind of structure is coming in vicious circles. Why is it coming repetitiously, even after major upheaval of major revolutionary events which look on the surface as a major revolutionary event like in 1970 or 1980, and in all times thats for my mind a little different mystery of history. Its not political, just what happened. History, history. Thats what i can offer as degree of soviet and failed democratic regime in russia. Thank you. Wla do you think of corporate pieces in the paper. What is the meaning for Development Going forward, your take please. Thank you. First of all, delighted to be here. Thank you for the lead. I think corporate assistance in my mind implies a degree of Competition Among various corporate entities. Not as authoritarian. I think you described it in the paper and your presentation, paints a more authoritarian nontotalitarian system, thats how i read it. It was just really one corporation. As i was reading the paper, thinking about my own brief remarks, i couldnt help but think one record of analysis and prediction of politics was pretty poor over the last 30 years. We as community of analysts failed multiple times to forget major pivotal points in evolution or revolution in russian domestic politics. Russian domestic politics in terms, little more than a month away from next president ial election. I have to say that i really dont see much possibility of change in the system that to my mind came into being probably early to mid 90s. I think some described it as system that survives, fundamental ideological distinctions in russian society. What was left for competition for power and property among various clans and interest groups. Interest groups implies in our Political Science a graded degree of plurallism. It was extended by the 1993 constitution that created the super presidency that in the 1990s was very weak and basically reduced to one clan, the family, centered in the kremlin. But a number of other clans rose to prominence. Probably in those days justified name of obvious name. We have seen balance of power between the kremlin and clans and kremlin perhaps reinforced by power ministries. Pretty much entirety of the past 18 years, the time putin is in office, has asserted itself as the much more than first among equals. I dont think it has been completely eliminated and at times when the system feels a sense of uncertainty or weakness that was the case in 2007 and 2008 at the time of president putins end of second term and questions about transition, considerable flexing of the system. I think we may be coming up with something similar in years to come. Not to say by any means that we are approaching a major transition in russian domestic politics. Science points to a pretty stable arrangement with very few internal challenges and very few external challenges i would say. This uncertainty about what would happen, mr. Putins next term, opens up the conversation in a way that it has not been opened until now. For the next six years, i emphasize the system appears to be quite able to handle the uncertainty and any sources of domestic discontent or challenge, and certainly were sieg seeing elements of discontent. Has been prominent promoting and describing candidacy, one candidacy at this point. But certainly clear to my mind he struck a certain chord in russian domestic politics which at present doesnt amount to a Major Political challenge to the system, but again, i think theres a degree of uncertainty there and challenge domestic for the system that we ought to be thinking about in serious ways. I dont think it is going to be really a systemic change but realignment perhaps. Just last but not least, my question would be to both my colleagues who spoke before me, and perhaps to you too, what do you make of this very strange president ial campaign with hugely Important Role as voice for many in the young generation. Then theres candidacy who at first was handpicked by the kremlin. Who is going to be in washington apparently soon. That again raises a very uncomfortable question for the system, how to handle it. Just the sheer presence and raising of questions in the public sphere seems to make the kremlin uncomfortable. Same goes for the Party Candidate who also seems to be pushing boundaries of the conversation that up until now has been quite stilted, constrained. I think in the follow onto our prepared remarks, we ought to consider the next six years. Im tempted to say in conclusion, the title of the panel is the direction of russian domestic politics. I think of it as going in cycles or circles. But i think maybe it is a movement along a spiral and ill leave it at that. Sandy, any comment on the thesis on the Foreign Policy side of this, if any. Thanks very much. Great to be on the panel. Back in the early days, ambassador taught me a lot about the system as it was beginning to emerge back then. I am quite convinced by the case in your paper that the regime has become more like a corporation than personal dicta dictatorship. I think some statistics are impressive and extremely depressing in terms of the nomenclature you call a boogy monster in the paper, with steady growth and dominance of all levels of the system. With kgb and fsb veterans. I urge everyone to read the paper when it is issued which highlight the role of key institutions, federal Security Guard service, service for protection of cultural order, which are under different names in the soviet period, have been instrumental in suppressing dissent and protecting the strength of the regime. And some interesting anecdotes how putins orders seem to be overwritten, creates more evidence behind this idea of a corporatist structure rather than single strong man calling on all the shots. Although at one point you suggest that corporation is dictating to putin, i think thats a little too strong. They still need him as the dispenser of the illicit wealth, and of course he is one of them, so it is not like they have a different agenda. But i think the rest of the corporation needs putins popularity which is some of which is genuine in sense of being antiyeltsin who brought some security to russia. So theyre all in this together. Run over by a bus tomorrow, like minded people would be to take place, in the short term, other members of the corporation could maintain cohesion among themselves is an open question. Less convinced Younger Generation are going to be a force for liberalization in the short term, but at least it is a hopeful theory we hope pans out down the road. But this is clearly something which is not new. Todays kgb incorporated or whatever you want to call it is the culmination of trends that began in putins first term when i was ambassador, saw increasing in tolerance of real opposition, shift to rubber stamp parliament, obtaining independent media, suppression of ngos engaged in human rights activities and hostile, xenophobic attitude towards foreign backers of Civil Society. One of the first u. S. Programs to get the ax during my time was peace corp, now virtually all assistance and Exchange Programs have been shutdown. So theres still quite startling to hear director justify repressions of the 1930s. I recall when i had occasional meetings that he sadie kwalid e hair raising things, although in private, and he is now head of security council. The trends were clear at the beginning of putins time but theyve become even more stark 18 years later. So here we are, less than two months away from the imitation president ial election thats scheduled on the 18th of march. As i see it, well, it is interesting to watch the protests which were significant over the weekend. Still, the regime has been relatively successful in pushing opposition to the margins, containing it without having to use excessive force. Theyre being careful not to make him into a martyr, but i fear if he is successful with the boycott and deprives putin of his 70 times 70, 70 turnout, 70 approval in the socalled election, harsher measures could come, remembering that the assassination has to have been signed off at senior levels of the regime. What does this mean for russian policy as you ask, john. I believe the priority that leaders of this corporation attach to a strong state and opposition will translate into continued confrontational policy toward the west. Whether under putin or any successor. The leaders of this corporation really believe their own the u states and its allies are bent on regime change in russia and that the United States through its support for Civil S