Calling from moscow already. And finally both countries are preoccupied, what i would call as a rather painful reassessesment or the roles in an world of increasing turbulence. And these differences in world views, differences in interpretation of values, different geopolitical interests and this preoccupation with ones own role is not really a recipe for success in the overall u. S. Russian relationship some what we have at that point i would argue is an amalgam of legacy issues and current crises. There is nothing on the agenda, nothing in the relationship that is particularly forwardlooking. Literally geared toward the change taking place in the world and how the two countries are going to cope with them. Without that, without the forwardlooking element, we find that the relationship is one onf a mix of competition, cooperation and indifference and without this forwardlooking element i would also argue what were seeing in this relationship is not necessarily the downside of this cycle of Great Expectations and profound disappointment but a new norm in u. S. Russian relations. This is the way it is going to be for some time. That is not a tragedy. It is not a tragedy because u. S. Russian relations dont define the International Order the way they did during the cold war. It is not a tragedy because i think it is indeed true that the fate of each country does not really hinge on the other, even if it is a factor in that fate. What this means i think in broad terms, and i will end on this note, is that this period of great hopes for this relationship, the one that we have worked on for the past 20 years has really come to an end and this is just another marker that the postcold war world for which we had such great hopes and expect tankses expectations 20 years ago has also come to an end, that were facing a new period in International Relation that is will require new thought, new ideas, new creativity for each country but more importantly for the overall relationship. Thank you very much. It was most optimistic presentation to put it mildly and very informative and maybe have the advantage of being true well see. One other things, chris . Thank you, dimytry. I dont know anything about russia, let me say sig about terrorism. Every Olympic Games had to contend with the risk of terrorist attack. In some cases it is greater than others. In others it is more controlled but has been perennial present. I think the reason fairly straightforward. I dont have to tell you what it is. We should go back to the person responsible for this preoccupation, someone named shmali, leader of the Palestinian Fatah Movement and one of the architects of the 1972 olympics games. Sorry, one of the architects on the 1972 Olympic Games. Afterwards when he was asked why his terrorist organization specifically targeted the munich olympics, he gave two explanations. Both of which still hold true and may in fact be more true. The first he said was an ideal opportunity to puncture the National Pride of the host nation and certainly the palestinians set out to do that in 1972. The new germany erasing an ugly past by putting, by putting on what was hoped to be very peaceful and enjoyable, spectacular olympiad, spoiled by the barricade and hostage situation that claimed the lives of 13 israeli athletes. That is one reason. Obviously a reason that i will describe in a second that is present with the sochi event. Secondly, and just as importantly, is the immense publicity that terrorists can be confident will accrue from in essence hijacking a global audience tuned in to watch the Olympic Games. 42 years ago in an era long best Network Communication that is exist today, according to one estimate, a quarter of the worlds population had tuned in in one fashion or in one form or another to the watch the 1972 munich Olympic Games. There was some 6,000 journalists present at those games. I would argue today both those numbers are exponentially larger in terms of the potential global audience and also in the attention that the media will devote for these events. Right there off the bat you have two reasons why every olympics has to be especially concerned about security. Why though sochi attracted this much attention and i have to say at least in the 40 years ive been studying terrorism, this is almost remarkable. This is the second event in a week that ive spoken at that deal with the sochi olympics. At least to my knowledge, i dont claim to know of every such event in the washington but at least the fourth or fifth in the past two weeks this is an olympics for a number of reasons that has received extraordinary attention because of the threat of terrorism i think the reasons are obvious and why the threat has to be taken seriously. First of course, sochis geographic proximity to the northern caucuses for the last century 1 2 have been source of recurrent violence, separate tim and resistance to central government. Secondly, perhaps at least in the history of the olympics for the past 80 or 90 years there has been few events that been this closely associated with a national leader. Of course, president putin who apparently has a house near sochi. The fact that his personality has been so caught up with the success of these games is another profound reason why it is such a stunningly attractive target for terrorists to attempt to embarass the president and disrupt the gains not then just the perennial interests in disrupting National Pride and publicity. Putting aside anything president putin may be responsible for in the caucuses or russia or surrounding countries the fact he remains one of syrian president bashir assads most closest unrepentant allies attracts unparalleled animus toward him and additional incentive on the part of those that seek to embarass him or reap the publicity. The track record of the potential spoilers of this olympics, in case the caucuses emirate that on three occasions since the end of october have been able to stage successful, increasingly more bloody violent terrorist acts not in sochi and nearby volgograd. This is one of the main problem any olympic faces, in the United States we faced the same problem in atlanta in 1996. The games themselves were buttoned down and enormously secure but of course the problem is securing the periphery, and periphery in ever widening concentric circles. The bombing claimed lives of one person and strategically injured three others in atlanta in 1996 did not occur at an olympic venue or within the Olympic Village but just outside. That is enormous problem Russian Security forces face not the least that terrorists struck at a nearby large city. Of the terrorism is the more theater. The Olympic Games in my analysis is second act which is troubling its own the first act weve already seen. Were participants in it here today. The first act was drawing enormous attention to the potential of terrorism to disrupt those games and i think that has really been quite exceptional in this olympics. The fact that there is so much concern, so much attention being focused on the potentiality of the games being disrupted by terrorism has already showered on the persons responsible for those attacks in volgograd and who want to use the threat of terrorism as a lever for publicity, i would say they have already succeeded but their investments by the way we responded to the threat has started to pay off. I would say also the social think games is the second act because of course it is not the only Major International event that will occur in sochi in the near future. There will be the paraOlympic Games in march. The 2018, there will be the fifa world cup. So the disruption of the olympics today at least in the terrorists perspective could have enormous knockon effects as well that will only further embarass the, embarass the president. Geographic elements russian president. What did i say . The russian president. The russian president , sorry. Geographically as well, sochi, beautiful place, but of course there is a highspeed rail link. There are limited roads. So it provides lots of opportunities to cut those communication, to create enormous disruption, becomes another reason for the attack. Then sort of winding down the list, i dont think my news is any better than toms was i have to say in terms why terrorists would be attracted to sochi. Multiplicity of potential very zareries and groups. Not just the caucussus emirate or dagestan, you have nearby likeminded uzbekistan groups. Iju. You have groups that not only would seek to target the games because of president putins policies or to embarass russia but also they buy into the ideology of global jihad where the caucuses do figure prominently. One of the iconic figures in the Jihadi Movement is a saudi who in the late 1980s, mid1980s went off to afghanistan to fight against the russians, in the late 1980s and early 19 90s he migrated to caucususes where he ended up being killed. Katab is always a leading figure and someone portrayed as desires russ of emulation and imitation. And then, finally, two more things. You also have, i think the potential of many chechens who have already gone to fight in syria and may make their way back but i think just as worrisome you have the potential of westerners, persons with clean passports as the media might call clean skins have also gone to syria to fight. Unfortunately the numbers from your roop creeps up into the thousands. Even in the United States we have not been immune, recent estimates from the fbi put it 50 americans that have gone to fight in syria and these people would find potentially the sochi olympics attractive and might migrate there to carry out attacks. Finally if the purpose of terrorism is puncture National Pride and generate publicity, one of the third preeminent characteristics or intentions of terrorism is not just to embarass or generate publicity but hopefully provoke a response in ones enemies that the terrorists will feel somehow counselter productive that that country or that government and helpful to the terrorist cause. When one sees the russian response, for example, in 2002 to the seizure again by caucus separatists of the moskow theater, and, efforts in beslan in 20004 to rescue the cool children and family that were seized there, you see these provoke very harsh, dramatic responses. That may also be in the terrorist motivation to try to compel the russians to do something that might produce a result that similarly bloody as both the moscow theater and beslan but the terrorists would hope would further embarass the putin regime further, undermine russias success in the games and hopefully in their view have knock off own other effects held in russia in the future. U. Thank you very much. Obviously ukraine is a very important and complex subject but it particularly interesting for us to hear what do you think about the impact of ukrainian crisis on u. S. Russian relations . Thank you, thank thank you vy much dimitri and paul, and chuck in the center. Somehow per flexing did you did not find room between Henry Kissinger and senator paul to say comforting rooms. Everyone around the table, is testament to the value of what you all do and im very perplexed that i have qualified to be on this panel but grateful. Let me say dont be perplexed. I was not smart enough to ask you to speak at our anniversary. [laughter] i acceded the idea. So not only did, i did this fellowship, it was under a program called title 8 embassy policy specialist and i worked for the u. S. Embassy in kiev doing research on corporate rating which is enormously important topic in ukraine a multibilliondollar problem for ukraine and western companies, i want you to know that program has been canceled. Title 8 was canceled by the state department. Most people who know are on the report say that is a mistake and a mistake at a time like this should be very obvious. We also have a Institute Office in kiev. It is not in the midan area but in the other part of the city but we have 100 alumni in the country. For that reason weve been able to stay very plugged in to what is going on. Were grateful to our alumni who are could not tantly spending us blog pieces and what is going on. We managed to organize direct things with them and literally feet away and they tell us what is going on and we may do another one soon so stay tuned. What i want to tell you guys before turning to impact on the u. S. Russian relationship is little bit of my understanding how on earth we got here because if you would ask me two months ago and those who did may disagree with dimitri about the value of my commentary, i would never, never have imagined that events would be in the extreme situation theyre in today in ukraine. So let me sketch out for you i think the four phases of this movement that we have seen. The first was of course from the 23rd of november when the government indicated that it was going to step off the e. U. Association track that it would not sign until the 29th of november. That was really the part of this that i would call the euro midan. That is when people essentially went out into the streets to say we disagree with this decision. This is something that should be done. Ian cove vich yanocikh signed the agreement. Most of the character was not so much politically. It was not geopolitical that it was against anyone or even particularly for the e. U. Or the United States t was simply about this agreement. It was a promise that had been made and people demanding would be fulfilled. Had nothing further happened, that process would very likely and this is what i said at the time, had basically fizzled. People would have most likely gone off the holidays and we have another tent encampment hollow protest. There has been a tent camp on the main street in kiev for three years that no one pays any attention to. That could have been the fate of the euro midna. What happened on the night of november 30th the Riot Police Beat up group of young people who were protesting in the center of the city and demand transformed overnight so that the protests the next day and social media commentary were entirely about that episode and the broader violence of police. This goes back for many years, but includes, for example an event that took place last june where a woman was kidnapped and raped and beaten by police and that they basically went unpunished for almost a month and it enraged people. This became a protest about the abusive use of force by the government and that really ran all the way through the holidays until the middle of last month that was on january 16th, when the rada adopted this set of socalled undemocrattic act, 20 new legislative acts which limit ad whole host of basic freedoms, everything from the right to drive in a convoy of more than five cars to the right to gather outside of somebodys house, to the right to simply be on the street dressed in a certain way without permits. All things that in a certain context certainly in the west, we also require all kind of permitting and put constraints on but in the context of ukraine this was taken to be an incredible mark of disrespect to the people who were in the street, a slap in the face and very much yanokovich turn towards autocracy. The demand of the crowd, the balance shifted toian cove vich must resigned. Everything what hale told, some kind of revenge and just tis, some kind of accountability for all of this abuse needed to be imposed. And then from the end towards the end of last month around the 24th until now weve been in yet what i would call yet a fourth phase. That was where i think to their credit, the government finally responded with something, perhaps inadequate but an offer of concessions in exchange for a ceasefire, a willingness to engage in at least serious negotiations with the opposition leadership. And there is a whole lot to say about the relationship of the opposition leadership and particularly individuals to folks out on the street, by no means oneonone but the bottom line the government is willing to talk and make certain kinds of offers and ultimately the Prime Minister and with him the entire government underneath president yanukovich have resigned. Were clearly in what i hope will be a final phase. This is endgame negotiation phase but by no means simple and the issues on the table are quite enormous. Whether there will be a through rowgoing amnesty for those already clearly been identified as forefront participants in the protest movement, many of whom committed violent acts which are clearly criminal and could be prosecuted. Whether amnesty will extend to figures on the government side who will form the government. What happens personally to president yanukovich. Lets not forget the precedent has been set when out of power youre vulnerable to prosecution and imprisonment. Whether there will be bailout of outside of ukraine. Whether the russian offer will come back on the table. Whether funds that have been promised will continue or whether there is a new offer from the west. These are very huge issues but were at least in a phase of negotiation where violence has declined to some did he agree. Let me Say Something about russian interests, what i perceive to be them, what i perceive to be western and u. S. Interests and where i think we might be able to go as a result with this relationship. I wont give you a historical lech you are about russia and ukraines relations. I teach two classes on that subject and could certainly fill an entire semester but the bottom line from russias perspective is that there is a historical question on the line here and it is legitimacy of russias place in ukraine. The idea that ukraine did not suddenly reinvent itself as a new, different, entirely separate entity after 1991. In fact not only are there lots of russian people in ukraine and have there been historically but in fact the legitimacy of the narrative about who we are, the ruse, stems have from a very large degree from events and concepts rooted in ukraine and these two things can not be artificially severed by geopolitical or political choices. Of course there are church and language and media, family ties all of which are enormously important. In a very genuine way to the russians, there is plenty of manipulation on the question of church property, the moscow patriarchy controls very valuable p