Question. Please go ahead. Hi, michael anders. I wanted to get your opinions on the idea that income inequality or lack of social mobility maybe a function more of disadvantage groups being taught they are victims. Not responsible for their lot in life as opposed to pure economic factors. That is something i would be interested to see tested. I know there is interesting work to be done by carol deck on the effect of different kinds of praise and feedback on childhood achievement. I dont happen have any strong view on it. And i am not aware of good evidence on it. But as a general principle, and something alex said, a lot of problems are microeconomic problems and taking place at a scale where we can understand and scale up. And that is true in say the unemployment benefit office. I discuss in example in the book of uk unemployment benefit. Money is paid to people who are unemployed but maybe they are welfa welfa welfare scrounging so they were quizzed to make sure they apply. And now the new method and giving them advice for next week when they go apply. And people were randomly assigned to different floors and the top floor was the forward looking and it was dramatically more affective at getting people off welfare and into jobs. Once you have the randomized trial, which is a standard of excellent that is great, and you can roll it out. We need to use it more in schools and i would like to under what is going on in these schools in scandinavian schools that make them so good and see what works in an american and british context and what doesnt. Problems that seem to be diff e diffused and large submit to microscale basis that we need to use. This was fun. But i am afraid we have to draw it to a close. Join me upstairs for lunch. And join me in thanking and tim and alex. [ applause ] [inaudible conversation] booktv is on facebook. Like us to interact with booktv guest and viewers. Up next afterwards with guest host Dimitri Simes from the center for national interest. This week angela stent and her book the limits of partnership u. S. Russian relations in the twentyfirst century, in it the director of georgia Town University calls for a rece reassement of the russian europe style. It is my pleasure to welcome our best guest a lot of people think that russia isnt that important and it isnt prepared to be helpful. Do we need partnership with russia and if so, why . We certainly do need help. The United States and russia are the two remaining Nuclear Super powers and we cannot resolve a number of the worlds major problem and we are seeing that with syria, iran, and terrorism and Counter Terrorism. Russia isnt an easy partner for the United States and vice versa but we have to work together. We have seen this year why the relationship is sliding down hill but we will continue to work together. And those that say russia doesnt count anymore or isnt important are flat wrong. It has to be a partner even though as i say in my book it is a cranky partnership. You made clear there are two kinds of limit. First, structural limits because of different interests, traditions and circumstances. And then there is limits with russia and what are those . First on the structural limits i would emphasis we are still living in a cold war type warp and we focus very much on these, if you like, 20th centry issues. The kind of relationship we dont have that we would have to have are a Better Partnership with a flushed out economic relationship. Russia is a raw material exporter. It sells oil and gas and these are nott things we purchase fro russia. This is onesided in a way. But the limits go back to the fact we see the world differently from the russians. That the russians want to focus on the sovereignty of states and state russia is a state of power and nay look at the United States as a revisionary power because they think we are invested in regime change and we want to change governments we dont like. So one of the real limits is the u. S. Foreign policy believes we represent certain values and those are free market and the law of human rights. And we believe we have the rights to pursue those when we interact with other countries. Russia doesnt see it that way. They say the United States is going around trying to recreate the world in its image. So one of the limits is if you are going to interact with a country like russia, do you focus on your mutual interest or do you focus on values on what is happening inside Russian Society . That is one of the sore points that has been there throughout the 23 years since the soviet union collapsed. This is a major issue. If your view of Foreign Policy is Henry Kissinger and you refer to him in the book, then you can have partnership with the russia. Saudi arabia is one of americas closest allies. I was born in the soviet union and remember in 1959, i was still small, but i remember on Russian Television seeing Vice President nixon appearing with the soviet union. There were interesting exchanges. And nixon said for the time, Prime Minister, i understand that your belief is that americans are going to leave on communist and he said that is fine as long as we accept you have your system, we have ours, and we will not try to change them. This is 1959. Here we are in 2013, and you get the impression in order to have good relation we require other countries to move closer to our beliefs. Do you think the obama administrati administration has the might mix on human rights . This is a constant issue in u. S. Soviet and u. S. Russian relations. The russians always say we criticize them for things we dont china or saudi arabia for. Russia is a european country, they are a member of the counsel of europe, and signed on to conventions of agreements where they are supposed to adhere to the norms and china and saudi arabia havent done that. It is true the u. S. Has not been consistent for criticizing russia and not their neighbors and i go into this in the book because they are important partners for the United States at least in the war on terror. I think the Obama Administration has been pretty skilled at dealing with these issues. The reset, when it worked, and it hasnt in the last year or two, worked with russia on common interest like iran, Missile Defense and afghanistan and saying it was a twotrack policy and separated from what what the was happening domestically in russia. This has changed in the last year, well the last couple years, since putin has thrown out other u. S. Ngos and we had the acts that banned the adoption of russian children. The u. S. Congress, if you look at the entire, again 23year period that i am look at, hasnt been a source for promoting better relations with russia. Those in the Congress Interested in russia are highly critical. So things that bans visas to russians involved in human rights abuse started in the congress. That wasnt what the Obama Administration wanted and they retaliated with the adoption thing. One important thing about your career is that in addition to being the leading academic, you were in several administration. Your book covers a lot of ground. It starts with almost the last days of the soviet union and then the goes to the current period. You were in the Clinton Administration and the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration at the state department on policy planning stuff. Tell us, if you look back, Clinton Administration, Bush Administration, Obama Administration, who work would russia better . You may start with bush 1 if you want to. You talk about his policy and he is disposed. So in my book, i discuss four resets we have had that i count since the fall of the soviet uni union. I was in in policy campaign and both times serving in government we were on a downward slide in the u. S. Russian relationship. So the first reset was brief. President georgia hw bush overlapped with wilson for a year. That was when the focus and National Security advisor put the focus on disarming them and denuclearizing areas. There was not enough given to helping out the new russian government and i know nixon was in favor of that. That was a period when the attempt to improve the new russia was focus on the nuclear issues. When the Clinton Administration came into office it was more ambitious. Clinton was the russia hand. He was interested in russia and i think he and those around him really thought that they had eight years at the maximum to refashion russia and turn it into a democracy and a market society. We know that was clearly overly ambitious and you cannot remake a society like that. And there was ana an attempt of Financial Assistance and getting them to buy into the u. S. Security and that is why we had problems with russia with the war in the balkins and that ended badly. Toward the end of the administrati administration, putin came in so i was in government during a downward period and the United States wasnt able to achieve what they wanted. The reset under George W Bush was looking for a better relationship. After 911 he was the first person to call and offer support in helping the United States establish basis in central asia. The desire was to have an equal partnership of unequals. Having a partnership with the United States that was strategic. And the Bush Administration was in favor of that. And the personal relationships were better and the cooperation was much better and russia was instrumental for helping in a variety of ways because if knew more about afghanistan. That fell apart once bush and cheney believed that the United States should go around and promote democracy and particu r particularly in russias backward and that ended badly. The Obama Administration came in determined to focus on the issues which russia wanted fto focus on. Arms control and nuclear proliferation. Afghanistan, that worked. Iran, that worked. But it began to fall apart because to some extent that reset was based on the personal ties. Even if people understood the Prime Minister was the important decision maker, the relationship was based on the two younger president s. And when it was clear that mr. Putin was coming back, that was a breaking point because mr. Putin blamed the United States for aiding and abating them. We had the relationship with Edward Snowden now always. So we are working together in syria, but where president obama said we have to lay back and president obama is a lame duck president and mr. Putin understands that. One problem with democracy proliferation that one no one believes in american sincerity. I rememb i remember meeting with the secretary of state, i think you were there, i came back from moscow. A couple people at the meeting stated that officials didnt like what i said and said what is your evidence . I was taken aback they were asking me this because we had an ambassador in russia, Tom Pickering and you refer to tom grim, who worked with the Bush Administration, and i thought they were objectively. And the United States completely identified with the administration because he seemed to be more agreeable on Foreign Policy issues and we were willing to support him blindly. And russians got the impression that the american view of democracy while you are a democrat. Am i wrong . I dont think you are wrong. I think from the u. S. Governments point of vow, the worst is the communist are coming back to power. It looked like the leader stood a good chance. He was at the World Economic forum, and made a speech that sounded reasonable. But the belief at the time was that the system that everyone was working hard to try and create in russia would collapse. And therefore, of course you are right, people on the ground at the embassy understood what was going on and that this wouldnt be a free election. We know that dick morris now and people that worked for him went to advice advise his daughter and people around him. We know he went from Single Digits to winning an election and people havent forecasted that before. You can asking the question now would it have been so terrible if a communist would have won the election . No one knows the answers. There are different views in russia and here. But this create added created a degree of cynicism about the degree of free elections. And in the year 2000, the republicans criticized the cl Clinton Administration for this. You are very fair in your book, i believe. And one reason you are so informed and you were not just a scholar, practitioner, but you know a lot of russians. You mention in your book, a forum where you had opportunities to interact with them, and i know from my personal experience with you that you know many members of the russian position. One problem with american scholarship is we have two kinds of people normally. We have scholars who know the russian government and scholars that know the russian position. You are one of few people that know both. Let me start with pooutiputin. Talk about his organizations . We have had dinner with mr. Putin every year and he is a very impressive, political leader. He is a man in charge. He will come to the dinners and give 34 hours of his time answering a variety of questions which not too many World Leaders i know would do. He never uses notes. He never turns to any of his aids to ask them questions for help. He is particularly interested in economic, data and energy. Energy is a subject he is passionate about. He is respectful. He can be sarcastic if he wants to be. Everyone that meets him is very impressed by the amount of time and his willingness to answer the question and sometimes he is he complains they are not tough enough. One comes away from the meetings with a very good sense of the message he wants to convey to the russian expert and outside world. And i think that has been a very effective forum. How would you compare putin not just in terms of his views, but how would you compare putin as a leader and personality to other World Leaders you have observ observed. I have never had the exposer to other World Leaders than putin. He is a leader. I think he has become over the ten years even clearly much more convinced of the correctness of what he is doing. I think he believes he came into office when russia was in a chaotic state and he has restored a lot of stability and restored russias place as a great power and i think that is visible. But unlike World Leaders in a democratic system, he is less tied by there is no separation of power. He is less constrained. So in many ways, he would come across as being more decisive than leaders to have to listen to parliament and pubic opinion. What some positions say that russia is a tolitarian country and you can see putin respectfully refers to others and how would you describe putins talk to democracy and how would you define the political system today . You have to go back to the 1990s, i believe. For many russians, not all of them, but the world democracy has connotation with the perceived chaos. And you have to look at mr. Putin background. He was there in east germany when it fell. He was trying to defend papers there. And then you can see afterwards in the 1990s he worked for the mayor and it was clear from what mr. Putin saw that that wasnt a clean election. So i think that his attitude toward democracy one has to look at his past and where he is coming from. He is not a democrat in any western sense of the world. B but it isnt that yet. The internet is pretty free. People can express different views, not on staterun television anymore. But putin isnt all powerful in the way that stallion was. He is probably the most single powerful individual in the system which isnt transparent. It is hybrid system and there are groups of people he interacted with and we can see in economic transitions he can not determine everything. So i think the best way to describe is manage democracy. There are elections but they are not free and fair in the same way we believe they are. It looks as if the tendency is going towards less pluralism. But it is very hard even to neopatrimonial is how some are describing it. It is hybrid system that we have a lot of difficulty undering how it wor understanding how i works. Lets give the United States ten and saudi arabia one. Where would you put russia . I think russia would be between the two of them somewhere. I dont know if i would give it a five. It isnt saudi arabia, it isnt the United States, it is more democratic than china is. It is more democratic than china . I believe it is, yes. In what way . You have different political parties, first of all. The range of views in the parties may not be wide. And there is certainly Internet Freedom more so. Lets have a short break on this note. On the go . Afterwards is available via podcast and itunes. Select the pod cast you want to download and listen to it when you travel. When you talk to russian officials the