We were unprepared for russian response. We got a russian response and we were caught flat footed. Thats poor policy making. Thats what we need. Again, we need to engage russia and have a better idea of what theyre really thinking about, what their capabilities are, and then fashioning a policy that gets us where we want to get if not tomorrow over time. And its been bad for us, but also bad for ukraine because were in a situation where we made this commitment that we are likely not going to follow through on anytime soon, and at the same time ukraine has had crimea taken away, has been subject to this very brutal conflict. It hasnt worked well for either. If you would address this point because this is a very interesting point. Yeah, it might be nice. It might be even right to say if ukraine wants to be a member of nato, they can be a member of nato. If we dont have the stamina to follow through, our allies dont have the stamite farmina to fol through, isnt that getting sort of down a track that isnt going to be productive . Lets remember what ukraine was looking at in 2013. It was looking to sign a deep and comprehensive trade agreement with the eu and an Association Agreement with the eu. Nobody, nobody, was talking about ukraine and nato in 2013. There was a no alliance or no joining nato policy. What bugged putin was a sudden epiphany that having ukraine sign this deal would be bad for russia after saying publicly on the record he didnt care if the eu signed these deals with his neighbors. He never viewed up until 2013 eu deals with armenia or ukraine or georgia as a threat. He has viewed nato differently. So it was a change on putins part, not a change on our part. Again, ukraine and georgia wanted to sign these agreements. We didnt press them into doing it. There were criteria and conditions they have to fulfill, but this was a choice of ukraine, georgia to sign. Theres very, very low support for joining nato among the population. Now the situation has changed dramatically exactly because of russian aggression against ukraine, its invasion and takeover of crimea. I think germans and others are even less inclined to support that. Ukraine joining nato. So perhaps theres much greater interest in ukraine, but theres much less interest in many other countries. The point im making is putin from his perspective was in a better position with ukraine before he invaded it because there was almost no support for nato and there was a very split support for the eu, and those negotiations have been going on for quite sometime. So placing the blame on crimea and the invasion of ukraine on the west, on the United States im not doing that. But thats whats implicit in your argument, i think. No, not really. I dont think so. It was a decision of the russian leadership. I said in my first statement that it was a decision of the russian leadership to respond in that manner. But we allowed it to happen. Lets look forward. Today russia occupies i can see the path so much easier. Right. Today russia occupies parts of eastern ukraine. It occupies two provinces in georgia. It has annexed crimea and it is still actively involved militarily in these places. What should be the goal of the United States looking at this . What should our objective be . Paul and tom . The first question you have to ask is what time period are you looking at. If you put this in sort of broad terms, obviously our strategic objective should be to restore the territorial integrity of those states. The question is how do you get there and what time frame. What sequence of steps do we take that get us there or have the best chance of getting us there . So youre saying our goal should be restore territorial integrity given the framing. I dont think you guys would disagree with that. Right. So tell us your pathway. I think the problem that you have with this is you cant put this simply in the limited context of ukraine. The problem we have with russia is that you cant solve these issues in isolation. Everythings linked for the russians. Syria is linked to ukraine. Europe is linked to what theyre doing in east asia, so i think we need a holistic, a comprehensive, approach to russia. We have to decide how were going to deal with russia in various parts of the world, where it is our advantage to cooperate with them, where we need to push back, how do we incenti incentivize them to do things we want, how do we create disincentives for them to not do things we dont want them to do. I think you need to think about this holistically. You know, my where youd want to be, i think, on ukraine is where, as i said, youve removed it from geopolitical competition at this point. Youve gotten the Russian Forces out. Ukraine itself is undertaking the types of reforms it needs to be a viable independent state over time. We need to diffuse it in some way. I dont think piling on sanctions gets us there at this point. I mean, thats been demonstrated over time. Any any event, holistic and then i think at this point diffusing the tensions so you have space to work out the types of longterm solutions youre looking for. To be clear, are you advocating we should also adapt linkage cross issues . Linkage is a reality. What we do on one issue impacts how they think about us on another. You know, its a fact of life. So we need to think of all these things as their interconnectedness. The real challenge to policy making is coming up with that balance of competition and cooperation that best advances our interests globally. Not necessarily any specific issue at any specific time. But if we think in five or ten years, where do we want to be, how do we structure the relationship with russia to give us the best chances of getting there. Just very quickly, i agree with you about ukraine, as curt was pointing out. That is the end goal we should be aiming to effect. However, i do think that sanctions can work. The problem is that our sanctions and our response to ukraine and our policy on syria has been very weak. Youre absolutely right that the way we act in various global theaters affects how our allies and our enemies perceive us. And i think the message that we have been sending with a relatively weak sanctions response, there were many other tools we could have used in russia. We used tools similar to iran that were effective. But the way we have acted in syria by leaving a vacuum open for russia to engage and engage in a brutal war sends a message to the russian leadership that the u. S. Is not willing to be a global actor, a Global Leader in the world. I propose to you the way we change this relationship, that we change the calculus, where we stop reacting to russian actions and start studying the agenda is taking a Stronger Leadership role in the world. Putin, what we know about him, is going to respect a strong u. S. And be willing to come to the table with a strong u. S. Leader much more willingly than he is going to be willing to the come to the table with what he perceives to be a weak country. Sanctions have had an impact. I think they have kept russia from going deeper into ukraine, but tom used the phrase piling on sanctions. We have nnt been piling on sanctions, and to me, thats the mistake. Hes going to get hit with more sanctions if he doesnt change his behavior. Weve had this conversation with the europeans will they renew current existing sanctions, not whether well ramp up sanctions. The deal should be very simple. Russia, get out of ukraine. Respect ukraines sovereignty and integrity. We dont need a bigger discussion or argument about that. We offered putin off ramps. The mh17 was an opportunity for him to pull the plug. Hes not interested. He wants to destabilize ukraine so ukraine is unattractive and unappealing to the u. S. So we lose interest in ukraine because it is an unstable place, which by the way is not in russian interests to have a destabilized ukraine on its border. Be thinking about what questions you would like to ask. About syria, we have a civil war. We have an isis stronghold. We have a regime thats killed a lot of its own people, but now a war thats out of control. Russia has come in militarily after taking away some chemical weapons, but they did come in militarily. They argue that theyre going after terrorists inside syria and they include in that the opposition to assad and they need to reestablish security as the First Priority and that the only way to do that is to work with the government. So thats kind of the russian argument on this. Its unsavory for those of us who would like to see a better outcome, but there is an element to which what russia is doing is aimed at least at tackling a real problem. So i want to ask first, tom and paul, to comment on that. Ive tried to pitch it in a fair way to you. How would you explain russias actions and what we should do about syria in relationship to russia . Then i want to pitch it to david and elina after that. Look, russia intervened in syria to protect its National Interests, the way they saw those National Interests, and protect a regime that theyve had long standing relationships with. Thats one. Two, their argument has a certain level of plausibility. If you remove the assad regime at this time, the replacement was much more likely to be a lot of bad guys. Were going to replace this regime, were going to bolster it, then work to a political transition that will keep this regime in power, but allow us to focus on attacking the real nasty people, the al nusras and isil over time. Not necessarily immediately. I think you can understand that from moscows standpoint. The question again for us is, one, what are we trying to achieve over what period of time and what resources are we, the American People, really prepared to achieve that. Russia is there. Youre on the ground. You have to deal with them. Theres no way around it at this point. Theres humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in aleppo at this point, but i dont see where we have many Better Options than trying to deal with the russians to at least create humanitarian corridors at this point. If you want to put a lot of troops on the ground, go ahead and see how much support you have in the American Public to do that at this point. So its a difficult situation. We face bad alternatives, but youve got to do youve got to work with what you have. You have to understand what the russian interests are, and see whether you can fashion something that stops the bloodshed in and around aleppo at this point, gets us on a political track where there is some possibility of political transition, and i think you need to drop as a condition or even what you think is a final goal is assad has to go. That is something you can work out later on. The real challenge now is to get into a political negotiation where you have at least the opportunity of coming to some sort of resolution of the crisis and focus the real activity against the terrorists. What about the argument, to draw that out as well, that russia is just duping us . We meet in geneva. We have a talk. Theyre the ones who are helping assad create this humanitarian ca tras trophy. Theyre trying to get their position established in the middle east. What about their argument . Look, we have a fundamental problem that we understand terrorism in different ways. You know, we think about al qaeda and isis as the epitome of terrorists. The russians, i think, would argue anybody that is fighting a legitimate government using means that approach terrorist means is a terrorist group and that you cant separate them. Whats their argument about al nusra . We all agree al nusra is a terrorist organization, but theyre intertwined with a socalled moderate opposition figures. We have promised to separate the moderate opposition from al nusra. Have we done that . No. Can we do that . No. Because we dont really control the situation on the ground, so theyre going to continue to attack. Again, i understand where theyre coming from. I dont think we have to like that, but thats the reality and youve got to deal with that reality the best you can at this under these circumstances again with resources that youre prepared to go to the American People and ask for in order to do that. David and elina, give us your analysis on where we are in syria and what we should be doing. When it comes to syria, both russia and the United States deserve blame and responsibility but for very different reasons. For the United States, its the decision not to do anything. Failure to create a safe zone, safe haven, to save thousands of lives and leaving a void that putin came in and filled in not following through on the threat if assad used chemical weapons. Lets remember assad is one of the bad guys. He has the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands, and russia came to his rescue. Assad may have been on his way out. Russia intervened militarily, propped up and kept assad on power. Further blame on the russian side, their conscious decision to target innocent civilians, hospitals, bakeries, civilian centers. Remember the contrast after we hit accidentally syrian forces. We admitted it the very day it happened. Russia two days later syrian planes with Russian Support hit a military convoy and they still deny responsibility. Were talking about countries that have very different interests. I dont see how you bring these together. I think theyre completely incompatible. How many times did john kerry talk to sergei about this issue . To add to that, lets not forget who left the negotiating table on the syria ceasefire. After multiple meetings, multiple conversations, multilateral support it was russia who broke off these negotiations and then continued its brutal attack on aleppo. Its not about a definition of terrorism being different. Its about the fact that russia specifically targets civilian targets and doesnt seem to care if it can separate between civilians or terrorists. This is not in line with our values in the u. S. , our basic understanding of human rights, and this is again not something we can find Common Ground on. Putin is a leader that doesnt give a damn about human life. In chechnya, he cut off the adoption of russian orphans. What hes doing in syria is consistent with this. He doesnt attach any value to human life. Blame, blame, blame, but you still havent saved a life in syria. I would like us to carve out a safe zone. How are you going to carve out a safe zone without risking a military conflict with russia and are you prepared to do that . There are no good options now, i agree, tom. But i would argue a military conflict with russia borders on one of the worst options at this point. We may have a military conflict whether we like it or not. If they keep buzzing our planes and ships, something is going to happen before too long. If i may, i think the real tragedy of this situation is that things that could have been possible in the past are no longer possible now. Right. And that really has foreclosed a lot of our opportunities. Lets be realistic. When you have a civil war, how do you get a negotiated solution to a civil war . You need all of the parties simultaneously to be Strong Enough that theyre comfortable negotiating, but weak enough that they think they might lose if they dont. Thats a very narrow band you need to be in. You need everybody to be in that same space at the same time, and i dont see a situation thats going to get us to that place largely for the reasons that tom has described, which i think, david, actually you would agree with. Question from the audience. Please stand and please introduce yourself. Thank you very much. First of all, thank you very much for the lively and very good discussion. Today, a lot of time has been spent discussing ukraine, georgia, syria, and other parts of the world, but it seems to me the time has come to talk about the things that are in our backyard. I mean in europe, here in u. S. So my question is to paul and tom. What is your red line . What russia should do and the United States for you to change your attitude of engagement to at least containment and i would say maybe selfdefense . Please pass the microphone to the right. The question again is, is there a breaking point to what youre suggesting . You know, i think theres certainly a breaking point. Let me be clear about what were talking about here. Were not talking about kind of unconditionally engaging with russia. Were not talking about giving away things to russia. Were talking about defining American National interests and then defining a strategy that we think will be the most effective way to satisfy those interests with respect to russia. So what were talking about is about the United States of america. I want to make that very clear. Secondly, look, i am entirely supportive of being quite firm in dealing with moscow. The question is when, on what issue, and with what goal. And is it is a goal realistically you can achieve through the means that you have chosen to pursue the goal . I would argue that its not a good idea to set unachievable goals and then fail to accomplish them. That makes us look ridiculous and it puts us in a much weaker position to deal with russia. Were in a much stronger position to deal with russia when we define clearly what we want, we define what the consequences are if it doesnt happen, and we define what we want and what were prepared to do about it in realistic ways that they will realistically have an opportunity to live up and that we will realistically enforce if they dont. I think the problem is let me just pause there because i think thats exactly what david and elina would say, if im not mistaken. You have a more expansive view as to what that ought to be. Yeah. I think we would argue is im not sure much more we need to take the approach that weve argued. As i said at the beginning, how many more countries does russia have to invade before we adopt the line were arguing . How much more people does it have to kill . I think assigning blame is important. I think accountability is important. And i think you have to look at what russia has already done in order to determine trends and patterns and then figure out how to handle it from there. I would just add to that that we have offered many not off ramps but areas of cooperation particularly on syria, negotiations on the ceasefire, to share intelligence information against the desires of senior officials in the u. S. Government, and russia turned that down. We have given them ways in which we can seek political resolut n resolutions and find a sustainable peace in the middle east, and russia has refused to take us up on that offer. A point of quick agreement with pau