Doctrine, there are various large bodies of thoughts of intellectual, military and political talks going around in russia for 10 years and some of those both have the same theme and sometimes they run into each other, sometimes they dont. For those of you here in the audience who have dealt with russia for many years you know that for a fullfledged doctrine that more or less encompassesthe whole society and the whole state , you need to be pretty organized and the russians are not that organized in that regard. Theres a lot of stuff going on and Different Actors feeling their different interests and interagency competitions and put on top of that corruption so nevertheless, lets talk about what we understand on this. , some people have described it as pointed out as new generation warfare, others terminate as strategic deterrence, others determine it as cross coercion, but all those approaches have in common is that you rely on asymmetric response. So its basically a very cheap insight to say that everyone has vulnerabilities so the United States as the military most powerful nation in the world of course also has vulnerabilities and so if this kind of doctrine is trying to exploit that along certain lines. And i think we should not fall, and i mean we in the west, nato, the us, we should not fall into the trap of describing russia as this strategic superman who can act on all fronts and who can tip our elections and who can intermingle their and who can destabilize whole societies and at the same time they have all these military capabilities. The russians are trying to exploit weaknesses wherever they are possible and if its not working, or instance like in the french elections, they go on and go somewhere else. So i would say yes, this is where. One of the responses to this doctrine is in the realm of resilience. Not so much in the realm of deterrence because again when it comes to asymmetric threats, how do you want to apply deterrence in the conventional or nuclear context. To someone who whose threading is information in your country, thats not possible. So make your societies more resilient and i think that applies not only to those countries that are being targeted by russians on propaganda on the 24 seven level like the baltics but it applies to all of society, why work they so vulnerable to the russians interfering in the election. Was it because the russians were so good, no, i think it has domestic routes in the United States so lets talk about that. Quickly, i think its very important to not buy into russian behavior what we want it to be so i would encourage you to go back and look at their own writing and maybe treat that in the military journal because what you see is theres a lot of perplexity about them thinking that the westthinks russian doctrine is hybrid so theres a lot of mirror imaging going on. Kathy. Im Kathy Crandall robinson with limited International Security. Im curious to know. What is the grassroots concern about Nuclear Weapons in russia. Its, does it matter and are there things we should be doing to reach out to the whole society about Nuclear Weapon issues at this time. Sounds like its for you. Really briefly, russia is going through a Nuclear Modernization. They are going through a period where theres this perception that the west is hostile in some ways, despite the fact that people very much appreciate western culture and im pretty sure russia has had all these out the cards so i think when a country goes through Nuclear Modernization and you see that with Nuclear Newcomer countries, theyre all excited about nuclear technology. But i think theyre also sort of very limited engaging with susceptible society so i doubt that you will find those aspects to that. But the one caveat to that is that where you do find some activity is with regard to the downsides of the Nuclear Energy program, the environmental implications that has upon certain bodies of water and other parts of russia. There you have an environmental unit that aspect of it but i would say thats only part of the thing. Honestly i dont want to pretend im an expert on russian civil society. Any civil side yes. So the polls are very clear, i think most germans think a Nuclear Weapons ban treaty would be a good idea. 85 percent, that was a poll from la 2015, 85 percent of them think that it would be a good thing to withdraw the us 61 from german soil. Which basically means announcing it as a deterrent. At the same time we have seen a very surprising debate within germany, a couple of months back germany perhaps was acquiring its own Nuclear Deterrent or at least getting together with the french for socalled euro deterrent and this is i mean, first of all that would run into sort of a massive german problem. I think every politician that hears this view would risk the end of his career but at the same time, we see a lot of pressure from other countries including the United States and not just on germany on europe and i dont want to exclude that a future stronger german French Security bond which had to develop not only for the sake of those two countries but for the sake of europe would at some point again seriously pursue that way. I would add to that it would be very interesting to see what that would mean for the russian debate. Other questions. Lets go first racial in the corner and then darrell. I already. Can i ask you to explain a little bit about what you think, the domino effect of failures to resolve the ins violations and how that would probably throw over to the senate deciding to not renew new start should President Trump think that. And what that would mean in terms of doing away with predictability, transparency and the cuban missile crisis level tension. [inaudible] thank you both. Already and tonya, i have a question about the us and russian president. From germanys perspective or on you, maybe if you could use the kremlin for a moment. What do you think the german governments want to see happen or not happen in reasons the President Trump and anya if you can, i know its a tough question in some ways but try anyway. What do you think the russians will be looking for especially with respect to the strategic relationship . And im sure im not asking about collusion with russia in the election but the traditional relationship between the two. Its limited to the realm of arms control. Taken as you will. Cause broader arms control may not be a concern of the europeans at this point especially given their reaffirmation of article 5. What three things with a light to the. To answer my question she ran overtime. How do these questions. And that anything including comments you might make as well. You want to start in response to rachels question . Rachel, inf basically what could happen are two domino effects. The one would very much pertain to the european theater. The other one would pertain to the bilateral us Russian Strategic stability so the first we know the facts, lets start with a worstcase scenario. The russians, they just continue to entrench them and they all, were not doing anything wrong here, i was fine whatever and the us asserts that it decides that they look and say weve got to get out of inf and we have to counter that. [bleep] for tat. We also need at least youll capable inf missiles in europe. Or maybe just go full in and say nuclear tipped inf missiles in europe. There are a lot of people in washington aware of the fact that that would be highly destabilizing. Not just in the general sense viscvis russia but what i wanted to find out also, the Alliance Unity in nato so a lot of sensible people like seve steve by or my colleague john wilkes have put forward some proposal for instance saying that we could station us longrange bombers in Great Britain equipped with air launchedcruise missiles, conventional. We could play the naval card, put more us ships throughthe european theater. Other assets say look, we should concentrate on point defense. An important military installations, that is the concern that nato has with regard to the baltic and escalation from the russians so i think there are some opportunities but as you can here already from my response , those are all, those are all military options. And as much as i like for instance, i can recommend the article my friend beck just wrote, this went forward in the related armscontrol issues. We would like to see those Arms Control Solutions but i have a feeling that that train has already left the station in that regard so lets work for damage limitation before we go too far. Let me know and respect to the bilateral, i think it could be that trunk decides well, its not a bad deal so lets just extend it for the next five years. He could do that. Even against the background of the ins violations but nevertheless, we would just face five years later. Or he decided against that and then you know, the strategic arms control mechanisms that we have in place will just wither away. And then that will throw a state that we had last seen in the very early 1970s and before the 1960s and you mentioned the cuban missile crisis, no one wants to go back to those so i think we have to really work hard on preserving inf. One more question in the interest of time, whittle it down to three things. All right. That was fun as the prudent trump meeting, at the sidelines of the g 20. Germany would like to see trump reaffirming article 5. X. Very briefly in the interest of time, let me ask the second question first and i like a brief point on the first question. X so in terms of the russian in the interest of sanctions, probably number one how feasible that is. And i think in terms of the broaderissues , stability baggage we also know that its a defense comparable strike and we know that it would be good to have some sort of transparency into how that process will proceed. I think those are the three things that the russians need stability on. Very briefly on the crisis question, i think you talked about the cuban missile crisis rachel ryan cuban missile crisis, dont get your crises confused because its important in the russian debate, the russians think they are back in the euro missile crisis. They do. They already know that epa launchers are half technical capability, they think this is vastly part of the discussion but if you read some of the things that bacchus is written for domestic consumption, theres a lot of concern there will be a armscontrol class that will be different so lets start with inf, and also cdt and it would go to the mvp so i think the russians you the class much more dramatic and much more potentially. [laughter] i want to thank both of our talented panelists for an excellent set of remarks and thoughtful responses to your question. We are going to transition very quickly to our final keynote speaker and im going to turn it over to zero. [applause]. Click you very much kingston, on you for a great discussion. And as they department me begin the introduction of our next and final keynote speaker for the day. Whos going to provide another perspective on the challenges posed by nuclear and other mass casualty weapons. We are honored to have witnessed the new un undersecretary general and high representative , secretarygeneral of affairs not to meet so. She comes tothis position with many years of experience at un headquarters. And the skill that headquarters, one refugee issues, un reform, development, peace speaking. She also before that was the professor of International Relationships at the local body, i think im saying that right, the university in tokyo. Theres not going to be a suit likethis , she has a job. Case, secretarygeneral and un member state and the office list of questions of how to Work Together to reduce Nuclear Dangers and how to enforce forces that prohibit other weapons of mass destruction. In particular right now the difficult. In the first few weeks, its very active monitoring the recent secretary for the 20 20 nonproliferation treaty, with writing negotiations on the new Nuclear Weapons prohibition treaty. And shes working a build support for un and the organization for the provision of weapons investigation into the recent and terrible seven gas attack in north korea so matter representative, thank you for joining us here from new york to be with us and to have joined us for our previous sessions today. Were honored to have you and we look forward to your perspective, thank you. Thank you very much. I wanted to start off by saying how nice it is for me to be back in washington dc. Share a secret, i am very much a proponent of washington dc. Is where i learned basically International Politics at georgetown and i felt very comfortable here in this town. This is also where i learned the importance, the value of equality, open and honest discussions like the one that we are having today. Without such discussions i would say the World Community is not going to be challenges when we have today. So you and your colleagues at the Barnes Association have already been very generous, very kind and helping me come to grips with some of the if you will more arcane elements of my portfolio. Ive been on the post exactly for one month now and those include introducing me to many of you here in this room. I am obviously very humbled to such a prominent and Eminent Group of people and id like to emphasize how much im looking forward to working very closely with all of you in the years to come, especially in this area challenging environment. So we have heard much already today and i already learned a lot about the serious armscontrol related challenges facing the community. These are not only some of the most important positions to the government in nonproliferation but i should say they are in Fact International security more broadly. But this is where i wanted to start off area the fragile and increasingly volatile International Security environment and these are obviously the result of tensions emergent of state actors with global regional and resurgence if you will of some of the historical and animosity so the environment is further undermined by challenges and provocative dvr k, in terms of the repeated use of missile and nuclear tests. Use of chemical weapons in the middle east and apparent perhaps backwards into cold war positions including some of the warring rhetoric we hear about the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It is often argued in this kind of environment that the government and armscontrol must it sell be changed until the climate improves and they are having humanitarian diplomacy to try and offset the hardline of politics so of course its enormously important including those in humanitarian law but i think this fails to take into account the historic role of arms control and nonproliferation in the maintenance of International Peace and security. As the armscontrol has endeavored to demonstrate, this is always been a critical component in preventing and resolving conflicts including during the tensions of the war. We saw that its integral to any position in this conflict. Disarmament, arms control and nonproliferation provide a mechanism for transparency and to build trust. A present useful dialogue and seek to find Common Ground, very important. In this way disarmament and arms control nonproliferation is instrumental to security for all of us. In todays complex environments, there is something i think we will do well to remember. And if i may add, the community benefited from an important leadership role the United States of america demonstrated in this area. A critical moment in the past. We all hope it will continue this way. The un has publicly a long history in disarmament armscontrol and nonproliferation. Here is one of the pillars on which it rests. The first General Assembly resolution that calls for the elimination of Nuclear Weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction, and the bylaws of mechanical weapons, the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty, the un has been a venue for dialogue and for successful knowledge and if you will, and honest rotor. Multinational disarmament and nonproliferation is a web of interlocking agreements and instruments. The wellfunctioning of each matters greatly through the overall credit credibility of the International Disarmament and nonproliferation regime. Each of these instruments is a brick in the wall of our collective security. Allow one to crumble and it will damage the entire operation. In this relation. We are witnessing some warring trends. Take for example the organization of chemical weapons factfinding missions in the republic and the un obviously doesnt jointly do this mechanism, both have been a objective independent and technical professionalism. Of the many allegations dislodging the use of chemical weapons, the technical experts and its fsm have been able to independently confirm 30 such instances. The gym has been able to identify three instances of chemicals and weapons by the government of syria, one instance both of chemical weapons by the islamic state. This work is crucial in reinforcing the taboo against the use of chemical weapons and bringing justice to perpetrators of the horrific crime against humanity. Is work that must be safeguarded and vocally supported. It should not be held hostage to any political motivation. And this conflict. Environment we must be able to rely on the advice of scientific and technical professionals and this is in fact a critical part of the overall credibility of the government regime. That we have built over many years. As an important example of warring trends. Part of the