Elena. Whats the alternative universe that you want to create . So tom and paul are making a case that we have a lot of interests, may not like everything that russia does, but we have to talk to them and get done what we can and tom had a list of things which if those are on your list to do, russia could play a role. Whats the alternative . Well, the alternative is that we have some sort of tougher policy towards russia. There have to be consequences for what it has done on the International Order for its invasion of sovereign country, its mass murder of civilians in syria. That tougher policy will be a mix of. Includes ramping up sanctions which we have in place. Reinvesting in our relationship with our allies. Standing up to russias human rights abuses, and of course, investigating russias best export to the west. Which is corruption. Russia needs to clean up its own act. And its not about telling them what to do, its our way or the highway, that is absolutely not what this is. But the point is that the russian people and people in any country should have the choice as to the path their country takes and the russian people do not have that choice. So containment has worked before and it can work again. And ill just add because we have a little time and you said dont waste time, but let me explain. I think its critically important that we bolster russias neighbors. That we support democratic Economic Security development in all of these countries. Whether they are nato members with article 5 guarantees which i think does put them on a different level or aspiring countries and having countries in the gray zone. Countries like ukraine and georgia and moldova. In this gray zone is incredibly dangerous. Aempb what i think we were to argue is we try to erase this gray zone, make it clear that they are welcome to join our institutions and i think the other side would argue we should focus on u. S. russian relations. Lets hear i wont speak to you. With respect to the gray zone, i dont want a gray zone either. The problem is that we ourselves created this gray zone because we declared at the nato summit in 2008 that ukraine and georgia would become members of nato. It was quite clear there were serious differences within the Nato Alliance about making that happen. So we created a situation in which there was a strong incentive for russia to take advantage of that gray zone. Now it was their decision to do it. It wasnt our responsibility that they chose to do. But we created that situation. I think we have to be honest with ourselves about that. The only point i would make is russia is in the gray zone. And so the question is, what do we do at this point in order to in fact create the opportunities for the types of space that youre talking about in ukraine and georgia . And i think finding a way that you can take this and minimize the geopolitical competition and engage with both ukraine and georgia and other countries is vitally important. Thats the chaj today. Its not wishing that we didnt have gray zones, weve got them and russia happens to be in them. Lets be clear here, we did not create the gray zone. That is just absolutely not true. We have to remember what nato is and what the eu is. These are voluntary organizations that countries must petition to join and must need certain requirements, nobody is strong arming these countries into joining nato or even the eu. They feel threatened by russia, and they seek to join these institutions because they feel threatened and they feel that their security is at risk. So the assertion that we the west, the u. S. Is creating gray zones is not frup because it seeks a buffer zone to protect themselves from what they see is a threat but that perception a also a false one. Can i just add quickly real quick. And id like to respond to that. Okay. Go ahead, david first. Yeah, just picking up on that point, paul. Ukraine and georgia applied for a membership action plan. We supported it. As we all know, it wasnt offered. And so the language that chancellor merkel was a compromise, pretty forwardleaning compromise, ill grant you that, but it was ukraines and georgias choice. Their right to determine their future and their orientation with your institutions. In contrast, russia leaves countries no chase but to join the economic union, they hold literally a gun to their head and thats why you saw a media back out of the eu agreement in september 2013 before ukraine did, and other countries so theres a huge difference between the way we treat those countries and russia does. Paul, come back i think there are two separate issues here. Look, its the right of yauk or georgia or anybody else to decide that they want to be an ally of the United States or that they want to be an alie of nato. Its the right of the United States, specifically under our constitution something thats assigned to the u. S. Senate. To deciden whether or not we want a particular country to be our ally. Those are two separate decisions. So i fully respect the aspiration of the governments of ukraine, georgia, or anyone else to be an american ally. But its our decision on the basis of our assessment of our interests. Whether or not we want a particular government to be our ally or not. Secondly in this particular case, we created actually the worst of both worlds. Because we made a commitment that these governments would become members of nato. In a situation of which it was very apparent for the reasons that youve acknowledged because there were disagreements inside the alliance that it wasnt going to happen any time soon. So we created a situation in which from moscows perspective, there was a danger that in the future, ukraine would become a member of nato, which they viewed as very threatening, but it isnt now. So would you reers is the decades also policy of nato to close the door and consign these russians . Im not saying that we should close the door on anyone or consign someone to a russian influence. It is an american decision. Who is our ally. And what i dont want to do is to outsource to other governments the decision about who gets to be an ally of the United States and when. What paul, youre saying, we created the gray zone. Because we said they could be members of nato and we didnt follow through. So, now they aspire to that, russia doesnt like it and theyre just kind of in this limbo, but underneath that, is i would argue a question as to whether russia has a legitimate say or voice is to what these countries ought to do, because the only reason its an issue. The only reason nato allies are uncomfortable is because of their relationship with russia. Its giving russia an assent that says you can decide what these countries get to do. I would argue that russia did decide. Its not for us to say whether or not russia has a veto, russia actually has in reality a veto which it exercised. Neither of those countries is ukraine or georgia and a member of nato. Either one likely make any progress toward becoming a member of nato in any politically relevant time frame. Thats been pushed far to the future. If you ask what i want, i would want a situation in which russias concerns are discussed in some kind of a mechanism that allows for United States and allies to address them for other kinds of interaction rather than russia taking unilateral steps which from our perspective, i think are much more counterproductive. Thats not what im talking about. Look at that, countries disagree. Countries all the time. We talk with european allies and the russia. We talked to the ukrainians about it. And so on. Thats natural. I think the issue here is what are you trying to achieve and how are you best achieving . Whether we agree with what russia has legitimate interest or not, the russians have told us for the past 25 years, ukraine is a red line for them. They would react. They reacted. We werent prepared to deal with that reaction. Thats poor policy making, thats poor state craft. So you need to understand what the other side is doing. How they think about it. How they might react. And that needs to be factored into your policy. If we want to bring ukraine into west, we dont have to achieve that today or tomorrow, but we need to have a real plan that takes into account russias attitude, russias possible reactions and put that in place and eventually get there over time. The set of actions, weve got a russian response, and were caught flat footed. Thats poor policy making. Thats what we need, we need to engage russia and have a better idea of what theyre really thinking about what their capabilities are and then 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 any time soon, and at the same time, ukraine has had crimea taken away. Has been stoubt this very brutal conflict. It hasnt worked well for either and elena, david, address this very important point. It might be nice. It might be even right. Te say that if ukraine wants, it could be a member of nato. If georgia wants it could be a member of nato. If we dont have the stamina to follow through. And we know that russia reacted in this case in ukraine. Isnt that getting down a track that isnt going to be productive . To sign a deep and comprehensive trade agreement with the eu and Association Agreement with the eu. Nobody, nobody was talking about ukraine and nato in 2013, yanukovych had 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 had never viewed up until 2013, eu deals with armenia or ukraine or georgia or moldova has a threat. He has viewed nato differently. So it was a change on putins part, not a change on our part. And again, ukraine and georgia wanted to sign these agreements. We didnt press them into doing it. They were criteria and adjustments they had to fulfill. This was a choice of moldova and not something we forced. And to follow up in ukraine at the time, 2013 before the revolution, there was almost there was very, very low support for joining nato among the population. And now the situation has changed dramatically. Exactly because of russian aggression against ukraine and invasion and takeover of crimea. Germans and others are even less inclined to support that. To support ukraine joining nato. Perhaps theres much greater interest in ukraine. But theres much less interest actually the point im making is that putin from his perspective was in a better position with ukraine before he invaded it. There was almost no support for nato and there was a very split support for the eu. And those negotiations for the dcfta has been going on for some time urnd yanukovych. The placing the blame on the an exuation of crimea on the west, on the United States im not doing that. But thats what is implicit in your argument, i think. 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 to that lets look forward. Today russia occupies i can see the past so much easier. Yeah, right. Today russia occupies parts of eastern ukraine, parts of two provinces in georgia, an exed crimea and it is still actively involved militarily in these places. Does take away territorial sovereignty of these countries. What should be the goal of the United States whasht our objective be . Paul and tom. Do you want to well, i mean the first question you have to ask is what time period are you looking at . You know, i think if you put this inside a broad term, obviously there are strategic objective should be to return the restore the territorial integrity of those things. The question is, how do you get there and what time frame . What se kbens of steps to do we take to get us there or have the best chance of getting us there . And again so youre going give us the steps to say. Youre saying our goal should be stored given the framing. I dont think you would disagree with that. Yes. Tell us your pathway. You know, i think the problem that you have with this is that you cant put this simply in the limited context of ukraine. The problem we have with russia is that you cant solve these issues and isolation. Everythings going for the russian. Syria is linked to ukraine. Europe is linked to what theyre doing in east asia. And so i think we need a holistic, comprehensive approach. We have to decide how were going to deal with russia in various parts of the world. Where its in our advantage to cooperate with them, where we need to push back. How do we incentivize them to do things we want . How do we create for them to do things or not to do things that we dont want them to do. Think of the complex problem, the problem is we put it isolate it inside of ukraine. So what are we going need ukraine . Well, and then you get all of these questions and it never works. I need to think about this hoe listically. You know, my where you want to be, i think, on ukraine, is whereas i said, you removed it from geopolitical competition that the point. Youve gotten the Russian Forces out. Ukraine zits undertaking the types of reforms it needs to be a viable independent state over time. We need to diffuse is in some way. I dont think piling on sanctions gets us there at this point. I think it is a reality. Im not saying impacts on how they think about us on another. You know, its a fact of life. We need to think of all these things in the interconnectiveness. The real challenge to policy making is coming up with that balance of competition and cooperation that best advances our interests globally. Not necessarily specific issue at any specific time. Where do we want to be . Just very quickly. I agree with you about ukraine as he was pointing out. That is the end goal we should be aiming to effect. However, i do think the sanctions can work. The problem is that our sanctions and our response to ukraine and also our policy on syria has been very weak. And youre absolutely right that the way we act in various global theaters effects 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 are many other tools swekd used in ukraine to sanction russia. We used some tools against iran for example the that were effective at the end of coming to the negotiating table. Sends the message to the russian loim that the u. S. Is not willing to be a global actor, leader in the world. The way we change this relationship, change the calculous or stop reacting to russian action and start studying the agenda is by taking a Stronger Leadership role in the world because putin what we know about him is going to respect a strong u. S. And be willing to come to the table that is a weak country. Sanctions have had an impact. I think they have kept russia fro from going deeper into ukraine. Tom used the phrase piling on sanctions. We have not imposed a single sanction on russia for failure to comply with a agreement signed in february 2015. Thereve been additional sanctions. We havent been piling on and that is the mistake. The target of sanctions has to think hes going to get hit with more sanctions if he doesnt change his behavior and what weve done instead is have this conversation with the europeans will they renew current existing sanctions . Not where we ramp up sanctions against russia for its failure to comply. The deal should be very simple. Russia, get out of ukraine. Respect ukraines sovereignty territorial integrity, we dont need a bigger discussion and argument about that. We even offered putin the mh 17 was an opportunity for him to pull the plug. Hes not interested. He wanted to destabilize ukraine so ukraine is unattractive and unappealing to the west so we lose interest and joouk an unstable place which by the sway not in russias interest to have a destabilized ukraine on the border. Lets hold it there. Im going ask about syria and come to the audience after that. Be thinking about what questions you would like to ask. Now about syria, we have a civil war. We have an isis stronghold. We have a regime that has killed a lot of owen people but 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 they are going after terrorists inside syria and they include in that the optician to assad and they need to reestablish security as the first pryty and the only sway 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 vooush 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 the fairway to you, how would you explain russias actions and what we should do about syria and relationship to russia. And i want to pitch it to david after that. Intervened in syria to protect its National Interests the way they saw those National Interests. And protect a regime theyve had long standing relationships with, thats one. Two, i mean their argument at a certain level of placability is that if you remove the assad regime, the most likely replacement that the time was a bunch of really bad guys. Were going to support this regime, were going to bolster and try to work to some sort of political transition to keep this regime in power in some way, but allow us to focus the attention on attacking the real nasty people, over time. Not necessarily immediately. So again, i think i can you can understand that from moscows standpoint. The question again for us is what are we trying to achieve over what period of time and what resources are we, the American People, really prepared to achieve then . Russias there. Theyre on the ground. Youre going to have to deal with them. Theres no way around it at this point. Theres humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in morrow at this point. But i dont see where we have many Better Options and trying to deal with the russians and at least create humanitarian corridors that the point. We 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 that the point. So, its a difficult situation we face bad, alternatives but youve got to work with what you have. You have to understand what the russian interests are and fashion something that stops the bloodshed in an around morrow at this point. Its on a political track where there is some possibility of political transition. I think you need to drop as a condition or even what sung a final go