Like to say in putin is very controversial with his attitude because before a was no there are five or 6,000 people looking for citizenship for fighting in syria. So the russians have succeeded to squeeze out the terrorists out of russia and then put syria in the position of isis i the putin is completely counterproductive in syria but he does what he loves. He himself as profited you prefer to fight them there a man here in russia. I think part of the problem as we ourselves have learned just because youre there is a meeting of the targets elsewhere but his government does not treat muslims at all. Even if they are very successful is a huge problem that theyre not dealing successfully itself. And basically being agitated what is happening in syria by russia itself so it seems that operation does not change cattle at all. What about putin schools and in syria . You said he was to keep in power and also he supports the illegitimate regimes which is not exactly true because if you remember when the georgian president was elected he was accepted and moreover russia supported all three president s so according to this we cannot say he always stands guard so when he says he wants to keep in power it is just his words and we know he is a liar. It is a matter of fact he lies constantly and publicly the you have a question . Dont you think he will give up assad as he needs it . I fink you misunderstood me a said he wants to project to the world but russia supports all legitimate rulers i didnt say that i agreed with that but that is certainly the message that they said that we support the leaders that are in power we are against a regime change. Maybe i did not make that clear but for the moment it does want to show assad and whether that operation has been successful or not. As much as russia intervened it was concerned that the forces were weakened in the government might be in danger. But they seem to be stronger and achieving limited goals. But some point they think that is in their interest as long as they have a say in who the leader is and can be you reinsure their influence will lasted is not tied to the man but for the moment that is where they are. Also any suggestion russia calculates a big but hardnosed based on power nothing emotional. There is no love lost it is just the government in power. From executive intelligence review. Most of the speakers were singing from the same song she tore a beating from the same drummer want to ask a contrarian question with the presentation there is something about composition talking about with the russians than the iranians have to do due to come to a solution if you see them connected at the hip that is a very big mistake because they both have their own interest the only way to deal with the situation and especially with russia with the much broader spectrum of interests that have to be dealt with to see them together read me the biggest mistake. Second, the question is how much putin sections are proactive . If we have to go into syria to assert our great power aspiration and how much was reacted . Remember what was happening in syria before that the u. S. Was considering having a nofly zone which of course, would have put that conflict in a much different context we would be on our way to a regime change by setting up an area under protection. And if the petitions they invest made the moves to counter that if you see it that way it was a brilliant move on his part to throw a Monkey Wrench into a very Dangerous Development in syria. With regards to his proposals working together when he came to kennebunkport to talk with bush after 9 11 he said lets Work Together to deal with this terrorism problem and bush said yes federating that happened after that expansion of nato, Missile Defense we did not follow up on that and that was the biggest mistake in the world so there is a certain sense they put out the hand of friendship frangible long time ago and was rejected. When my paper is published you will see a little bit more new ones with the russian and iranian relationship. They do come at this from an entirely separate set of interests. But where they come together for the time being is in the perpetuation of bush are in power in syria. Now this touches on the plane to lamp absolutely in favor of engaging the russians to the topic of syria. The shortfalls of american policy the past two years probably this isnt an area where we can be criticized. Most of 2003 we carried chase and when they finally caught him he got a peace conference that was a fiasco. Now we have the vienna process we can hope and pray succeeds. What i would like to see if they do think were in Crisis Management mode i agree entirely. Nobody has us Silver Bullet but the one thing that is absolutely essential for the United States and russia us to agree upon is mass casualty attacks on civilian populations are inadmissible under International Law and must stop now. Even the fact were in the middle of the privy your humanitarian abomination of our time and Means Nothing to individuals, how in the world will this be in a process get anywhere with the civilians on the bullseye . How does the opposition delegation come to new the table in the spirit of goodwill and compromise while the constituency is blown away on a daily basis . How do we fight isil with this marvelous recruiting tool provided by assad regime remains in effect . That is why the issue between the United States and iran and russia needs to be addressed up front otherwise the vienna process becomes elongated permission slip of the continued slaughter that will stop anything good at all from happening in syria. From the Atlantic Council with the policy we have heard unequivocably the only issue that had bipartisan support that everyone in the u. S. Agrees that assad must go but it was how much support in read never challenged the basic premise that the russian said it was dangerous and of the to the destabilization they have the german interest in was dismissed and maybe four years later can we challenge the premise that the russians got it right in russia have listened . I think given the role of assad to make isil possible in syria and the ongoing roll to keep that Organization Healthy and well inside syria, tens to reemphasize the fact that if we had a strategy to implement the president s words, have implemented that strategy we would be a much better place than we are now. But we didnt so the question remains. I guess we can kick that to the next panel where do we go from here . You are right to with a very good point from the Russian Point of view that the syrian problem could be resolved like chechen town chechnya and then demolished that and then establish authoritarian piece that occurred in algeria and after all why should the west complain . We have dealt with the a sock regime before what is the difference . In what is the difference between the algerians . Or quite frankly just like egypt it is seen as similar. But that indicated the continuation of the assad regime shows that is the trouble but i have a feeling we will see in syria what everyone doesnt want that iraq will be a defacto and maybe more complicated there will be a kurdish area or the arab area and isil has its area. And neighboring states have their areas of influence as well. That is what we will see even though that is what nobody wants. Jumping in and, of course, it is a sensitive issue. But the day after i can tell you because i have done this for a long time, hundreds of scenarios, and there are conflicting with each other. It is a question, and it will always be a problem until it is answered, but if you try to develop for the new syria and then back to he will actually be the president. A reference to the morning after will resonate. We try to deal with the same issue with respect to saddam hussein. Saddam must go in the thesis of the United States work with iraqi democratic opposition to construct this idea of the morning after, what would it look like. I dont regret that, but i think it was our failure to actually succeed in having a clear vision of how shiites and kurds and sunnis and christians and all the rest would hold that out. Exactly. It was. We have got just a couple of minutes. Why dont we see if we can put together whatever questions are there and in the panelistsany panelists would like to sum up we can do that. The me take the farthest back that i can see. Again, the last and i could see in the back and i will work forward. You know, from turkish equatorial, the imprecise bombing that has gone on by the russians. Yesterday we had a conference. The number of people fleeing syria has increased. A lot of them are going. I was wondering, i have never heard anyone talk about russia. Helpinghelping syria and the sod, are there any Syrian Refugees and russia . Okay. Thank you. The gentleman with the red tie. Eastern europe and russia and nato. Thank ournato. Thank our egyptian colleague for asking us to be mature. And i think that is very helpful. We have heard there is a redline on the part of the administration which seems to be accepted. If youre going to be mature and accept that we have to accept we are compromising with other peoples interest. We have to make real choices. For four years we have played a part in keeping syria enmeshed in civil war. Mr. Kerry said that that was his objective. Mr. Obama has said on several occasions he does not want our side to win by force. That is a very peculiar argument. It does not do any good. I think there is a real need for maturity command i would like to see us. Our initial presenter said to do the right thing to give substance to our hopes. We still probably have to compromise, but in the absence we have to compromise more. I would like to suggest that the coalitions might not solve everything, but you did not say that but that seems to be the logic. Therefore it is not worth it to have a grand coalition because we might disagree about the future afterwards. We think that kind of statement. One more comment only and then we will have to close. My name is dmitri. You said that you believe that the middle east cannot do it without the west end without russia. Do you think the general population supports that idea . And do you think islamist extremism has increased over the last ten or 20 years or do they just have more avenues and resources at their disposal . Comments on use of force, people like to sum up. I will sum up by answering that question. I generally believe that the educated public understands that they cannot solve alone and therefore engaging the russians and the west and nato and europe is the only realistic way out because there is no support for the air were alone taking all the risk. So i think that is unfair. The emotional public dislikes the russians and americans equally, although americans when a little bit on that. But that is not really my concern. Who are the activists, the serious people that want to engage. The rational thinking is we need to do this together. If i could just address that point about the grand coalition. The trouble is there are certain patterns we see what wants to happen or not. The grand coalition against hitler did not lead to a grand coalition going forward. The alliance came to an end. I think that we have to expect something similar here. Especially with putins call , he works against the west and ukraine in particular, 2014, 2015. Can we be allies together and syria . I have ai have a feeling that will not be the end of the story. When he can. He will do so. Understand the nature and so i think thati think that that we have to be very realistic. If it is defeated we are not going to be agreeing on what should be continuing in syria at all. I will may be just take off on that and go back to the question of what the russians expected. The language about the anti Hitler Coalition was used in 2,001. Why did it work . You know, the relationship seems to be on the uptake event. The russians were helpful in that initial phase, the fall phase, the fall of 2,001, war in afghanistan because we agreed on to the enemy was. It was in russias interest to have the us and allies go in there and take care of the problem. We are not in the condition today. Of course we should try to work with the russians, but to have a successful coalition like this we have to agree on who the enemy is. We do not accept by saying in general it is the islamic state. We dont have the trust which in a way we did have even in that brief window because of everything that has happened in recent years particularly the ukraine and or the russians have failed to say what they are doing. That is why we can try, but the conditions that make cooperation counterterrorism cooperation possible are not there now. Okay. On the question about the, yes, i agree that it is rare but then i think we can of course try, but i think it is too late. Completely different. The coalition under such circumstances. Claiming to help syria. If a coalition of truly professional military forces and sufficient numbers i saw an Eastern Syria to the job professionals cannot. Not sure about the effects how this is obstructing rather decisively the inflow of humanitarian assistance to needy syrians discussions about the future, the composition of the opposition delegation all obviously interesting discussions but to the extent that they dominate, this vienna process to the effect that the protection of syrian civilians excluded from the discussion, it is excluded from american, russian, marion american iranian, this process would go nowhere. One might hope and think logically there has to be a focus everyone can agree on. I would like to thank everybody. We went a couple minutes over. We will reconvene promptly and see you in 15 minutes. [applause]udible conversations] i would like to thank everyone for coming this morning. As you can see, we havesee, we have a great panel. The importance of the conversation has been heightened. As we speak their negotiations going on in new york following secretary kerrys visit to moscow. With that i turn it over to our 1st speaker. Thank you. I am flattered to be here, delighted to be invited to Atlantic Council program and humbled to be among so many deeply experienced and wise copay lists. My task was to layout the motives for the russian intervention in syria and then say a little bit something about what it means in terms of the context. In my paper i layout two sets of motives. The circle of three at i consider to be primary or strategic consideration and three less important ancillary motives which may or may not intertwine in interesting ways. The 1st circle of three, the least ambitious and most obvious russian motive for the intervention in syria, mentioned in the 1st panel is obviously there was an ally in trouble. Over the last years but as of last summer as was mentioned in the 1st panel the regime looked to be in real trouble, and the russians dont have a lot of allies. The only days the russians have outside of Russian Federation territory. It would look that and be that for the russians if they lost the only ally they had in that part of the world. Just like the United States intervened many years ago to protect South Vietnam from being defeated the russians intervened. The 2nd motive alluded to earlier is that they put russia and the role of the kingmaker. They are there on the ground tanks and airplanes and other military accoutrement and had become a much larger factor in any percent perspective settlement and then what might be done thereafter. The 3rd motive is highly speculative on my part. I have no hard evidence to back this up. It is a logical inference that we need to at least consider. The Syrian Regime over some four years which is not a very impressive order of battle managed to kill Something Like a quarter of a Million People to create Something Like 4 million refugees and to create Something Like seven or eight internally displaced peoples. The russians if they wanted to take kill three times as many people the. Is to put a good deal of pressure on the European Union. Aa great deal of difficulty coping with 800,000 refugees imagine what it would do if they had to deal with three or 4 million. I have no evidence that the russian government w was deliberately trying to exacerbate and pushed to the right european politics, but i would not put it past him. The three strategic rationales. I also see the dolls nested inside of one another. The 1st is to create a rubble heap so that they can get closer to moscow in the 2nd would be to suborn. The 3rd goal would be to send little green men into a baltic state and watch what would happen. It is possible in theory king previously harm nato than the asylum refugees in syria command is possible to put a great deal of pressure i grant the union. Have already seen the italians a little wobbly against russia on the count of ukraine. These motives are not unreasonable. The three ancillary motives one of which has been mentioned a lot, his desire as a matter of course in the course as was mentioned, a lot of domestic political residents and i dont think we should underestimate the domestic political motivations for a lot of what the russian government has done over the past several years. You can track what the russians do a broad the difficulties that are perceived in the domestic realm. But there are two other motives. I mentioned ukraine. If peoples minds off of Eastern Europe and ukraine and this is worked wonderfully. After the speech is that president obama and president putin gave you will recall the french and italian delegates risk wished the russians well. What kind of amnesia do they have to have . The 3rd ancillary motive command i am not a russian expert. It seems to me that one of the things we have been witnessing is a kind of International Arms show designed basically sell weapons. The russians had to eat and 8 billion bill in the government in a rack went down. The syrians of them foreign have to 5 billion but more important the russians have sold the iranians the air defense system. The order of battle is basically useless. Elliott something along the order of a hundred billion in cash. Where wil