as a public service by america's cable television companies. and we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. him he looked at russia's use of cyber warfare and disinformation as a strategy to attack western democracies. following his comments, a panel of analysts will discuss the strategies and how western governments can respond. this is an hour and a half. good morning, everyone. my name is bill burns and i am the president of the carnegie

endowment and i'm pleased to welcome all of you today to the launch of our new global russia project. our objective is to bring together a network to take a fresh, sober look at the why and foreign policy and the implications for us in .ashington and around the world as all of you know, this is not an academic issue. every day with every new indictment and headline, we are reminded of the ongoing meddling in our democracy and the domestic divisions the kremlin seeks to highlight and exploit and every day we see russia playing its hand in ways few of us could have imagined even a decade ago. many things in washington, the can ben to putin erratic, with some people focused and others retreating

behind denial of inconvenient truths. that syndromere or weigh in on the political drama. what we will do and what is important to do is to help policymakers here and around the world develop an understanding of russia's aims and objectives and a more nuanced response. that is easier said than done. i learned that the hard way. i served twice as a diplomat in russia. that was a long exercise in humility, not only about what is possible in relationships, but also about my powers of prediction about russian behavior. it is a safe bet putin will be reelected in a couple of weeks. as his speech makes clear, it is a safe bet russia's foreign policy will continue to be a

combustible combination of grievance and insecurity and ambition. it's a safe bet our challenge will be to manage a largely adversarial relationship to read it is not that russia is 10 feet tall. it is handicapped by a one-dimensional economy, overdependence on hydrocarbons. in putin, you see a litter who has been -- leader who has been willing to play rough and intends to see a target rich environment around him. the kremlin is asserting itself as a player that can't be ofored in an expanding array regions and countries and by exploiting western divisions, it threatens the international system we have worked hard to cultivate for over 70 years. the stakes are real and they demand the very best from all of us. that is why we are fortunate to

have senator mark warner here. he has called the russia investigation he is leading the most serious undertaking of his public life, an extraordinary career from the governor's mansion to the u.s. senate. indeed no one knows more about russia's meddling in the pre-16 elections, or has worked harder to study the strategy behind that operation, and the implications at home and abroad. no one has demonstrated a greater sense of purpose, courage, or commitment to sustaining the bipartisan foundations of our foreign policy in these hyper partisan times. him and senator burr, the chair committee,lligence we'll them a debt of gratitude at this moment of testing. halloween his remarks, we will move to our pant -- following his remarks, we will move to our panel. i want to congratulate my colleagues for putting together this timely and important in joinr and -- endeavor and

me in giving senator warner a warm welcome. [applause] sen. warner: thank you for that very kind introduction. it is great to see everyone here this morning. times ina number of the last few weeks, few months, that people have been kind enough to say to me or richard happy you, we are so are the adults in the room. what a low bar we have struck. [laughter] again, thank you for that introduction. we could use your steady hand in the state department these days

more than ever. i'm glad you are still engaged in the fight here through this great platform you have it carnegie. you have always been a clear and strategic thinker and on behalf of all of us who continue to serve in the day job, thank you for what you're doing. a timely timened, to have this presentation. i'm going to acknowledge my age and put on my glasses. madepeech that mr. putin indicates his current status quo approach, ring aggressive and bellicose is not going to disappear. again, my initial kudos to carnegie for their informative work to decipher this extraordinarily complex u.s.-russian relationship.

again, this is not a newsflash. too often those of us who are weght up in the day to day, are caught up in the latest new cycle and i am concerned that we can miss, this failure to step back how all of these events actually form a context and are basically presenting themselves in alarming picture of the new russia and how it is emerging as a threat to the united states and our allies. the chance for me to come here andy and take a step back sort through some of the strategic and policy implications is very important. i think you for that opportunity.

thinking about the terminology, let me go down the litany, blocks, little green men, distributed denial of service. national security leaders have been forced to learn a new language in terms of dealing with 21st-century threats. our long-standing rival, russia, has reimagined in the world and with a new playbook to exploit our open society, to the divide us from within and cut us off from our allies. some commentators have tried to define this as a new phase of the cold war. what we are experiencing now does not resemble the cold war i recall growing up with. back then, we had a sense of who our adversary was and i think

americans across the board understand that threat. it even had a physical form, the berlin wall. which divided east from west, capitalism from communism, freedom from oppression. we know who the bad guys were. where they stood. our national seat -- security, because of those divisions, emanated from that. is much moreict amorphous. of theditional tool cold war, mr. putin also has nonconventional weapons and tools, like cyber attacks, energy deals, hacking, selective toking, and a bot army spread disinformation.

these tools are designed to help russia undermine its enemies in the west. they are often deployed and this is one of the distinctions now and the traditional cold war, many of these tools are deployed by nonstate surrogates, thereby giving russia the ability to claim when their agents are caught taking these actions. the bottom line, i believe rather than a framework of an old cold war, we are now engaged in a fight in the shadows and we are sure the fight currently winning. let me take a moment to give my perspective on how we got here and what we need to do going forward. the united states reached out to

russia and attempted to break it into the western community of nations. we perhaps naively assumed into the g7egration and eu was natural and inevitable. many of us imagined after the failure of communism the success of western free market democracy would spread eastward. at the same time, we watch military atrophy and its economy stagnated. thekly i think most across of the establishment, we assumed the russia threat was reduced. times, we declared the cold war was over and that we had won.

we turned our focus from superpower rivalry to counterterrorism. obviously the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the challenges emanating from failed states. we worked to track down and around kill terrorists the world. this was a logical and understandable transformation given the 9/11 attack and other threats to our security emanating from the number of failed states around the world. was a cost to these decisions and we took our threatf the reemerging posed by russia. what they did not imagine at the thatwas the resentment many russians felt at the economic uncertainties of the new free market. the chaos and inflation.

it wiped out many russians' permanent savings. we failed to recognize and predict the corruption of a small group of oligarchs and we fail to understand the kind of hit most russians felt with the loss of the superpower status the soviet union had. these feelings led to ordinary russians desiring stability. frankly, their disenchantment with that short-term russian experiment with democracy. led to aultimately further enhancement and 'ntrenchment of president putin power. we saws yesterday and as we have seen throughout his comments over the last few years, putin

continued to nurse a grudge against the west. he called the demise of the soviet union the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. he used his growing control of television, film, and other organs of propaganda as a way to stoke popular discontent and to encourage ordinary russians disillusionment. he relied on these powers to boost his standing with the russian public and replace the old notion of a russian-led communism,-based philosophy of russian nationalism. with that backing of the majority of his public, he began a program of rearmament with the aim of challenging the united states and our allies.

away fromdays shifted russia, which we began to write off and dismiss as a regional power, russia really never lost its focus on us. targeted onins and on liberal order what its kgb-trained leadership views as the enemy, the united states. russia diligently honed and updated its toolkit for a different kind of great power rivalry. they could not match us in the old cold war paradigm, so russian needed a strategy that would allow them to compete with us on a new emerging battlefield . staff gavef general putin when he needed.

he outlined a new strategy wasrine that the kremlin more suited to fight and strategy they believed they could win and bring russia back on par as a superpower with the west. he recognized in a way that very few within our government did, a blurring of the lines between war and peace, between direct conflict and in direct conflict in the 21st century. he emphasized nonmilitary means to advance this doctrine. informational conflict. and using the measures of what conceal call character. outlined asimov

doctor and relying on conventional weaponry and also on a system of asymmetric means. of hacking, cyber attacks, informational warfare and propaganda would be the weapons of choice. he painted a picture of the in the shadows, a type of hybrid warfare. it is a fight, and from all of the comments made by putin and his allies, the kremlin is actually intent not only in but intent ony, winning. to work implementing this doctrine. first across the border in employed in little green men and information warfare to create a state of instability. estonia andeted georgia and other countries within the former sphere of the

sony it -- of the soviet union. he invested in this type of deniable tools that would help him overcome the west's traditional advantages. he has turned those weapons on the united states and i believe that this moment in time we are inadequately prepared to take on this new challenge. in recent months, senator cardin and the democrats on the foreign relations committee, delivered a well researched report on russia's asymmetric assault on european democracies. they outlined a comprehensive array of weapons in the kremlin toolkit, including the use of organized crime, corruption, energy security, and even the russian orthodox church to increase russia's influence throughout the region.

we don't have time to get into all of those today. i recommend everyone takes a work. of senator cardin's what i do want to address are the three major avenues of attack russia used during the 2016 campaign. first, the targeting of our infrastructure. second, the hacking and recognizing of information and use of those weeks. third, a new realm of information warfare, particularly as it affects social media. the senate intelligence community, on a bipartisan basis, is focused on each of these items. first, the truth is our election strength. the beauty and curse of our system is that it is fragmented and decentralized. that thought is less comforting

than it might seem when we step back and think how an outside system ofuse this elections in ways to attack us. non-national elections are decided by a few thousand votes. it would be typical for any foreign power to attack each and every system in a national election, what we need to understand is that a presidential election can actually be swung by a few thousand votes in a single jurisdiction in a single state. the ability for the russians to that to a level of specificity is remarkable. potentialhreat of russian incursion undermines our public's confidence in our election processes and that

undermining can have devastating effects. the russians have tremendous .ipro -- cyber capabilities we have much work to do to ensure our election infrastructure can withstand anything the russians will try. the truth is where we stand in the beginning of march, we are nationpared across the for the 2018 election cycle, which begins in a few days in terms of the primaries. we have high marries in illinois and texas this month and we are primaries in-- illinois and texas this month and we are not prepared. the kremlin has gone to great lengths for malicious cyber activity. including hacking and weaponize in information. maintains some of the most prolific

state-sponsored cyber capabilities, much of his measures have not been state-led. the kremlin has been able to assistance from a detached corps of nongovernmental hackers that and harborsurtured from international law enforcement. rather than always being government-led, these hackers are generally free to engage in criminal activity and moneymaking endeavors around the globe as long as they keep their activities away from any of the russian oligarch's. and it suits them, putin his allies are able to utilize these capabilities to further their own active measure campaigns while allowing the kremlin to deny involvement. putin has trolled the u.s. by

denying meddling in your -- u.s.ns and allowing elections and allowing patriotic hackers, he says, i can't control them. morenk there is a little controlled than he has been willing to admit. hacking is not unique to the kremlin. however, weaponize thing that information is a growing part of the russian playbook. the truth is, we should have seen this coming. even if we did not look at all of the activities in estonia and other nations, if we recall in 2014 when a conversation between the secretary of state and the u.s. ambassador to ukraine made its way into youtube where it caused a diplomatic uproar. in retrospect, we should have seen this incident as a test run

for the type of attacks that we saw during the 2016 presidential campaign. this was an area we should have predicted better and we are not fully prepared for today. , the kremlin is also making unprecedented investments in 21st century information warfare. the sovietswar, tried to spread fake news before that term was popular. and spread theories they government was involved in the assassination of martin luther king jr. and the military had created the aids disease. like today, these efforts were geared at trying to undermine basic americans' faith in our government. the widespread use of social media has allowed russia to

supercharge its disinformation efforts. kgbor the kgb -- before the had to set up a newspaper in a different country or use a series of tools to create a , that would only hit a very small targeted group of individuals. now with social media they have instantaneous access to hundreds of millions of social media accounts where propaganda and spread liken wildfire. while we recognize the power and value of these social media platforms, if we step back and think about this, from my day job on the intel committee, in many ways if an organization was

trying to create a network where they can do the most damage spreading false information and undermining people's confidence and they can imagine what the network might look like, chances are it would look like some of todayatforms that exist in terms of how we gain our news and information. likeise of these platforms facebook, twitter, youtube, every shaped our entire culture and the ways we communicate and access information. why we marvel at the new opportunities offered by this technology, i believe our government and the technology have not themselves fully understood the ramifications of these giant communities they have created. and how these communities on darkl media, the

underbelly, can be abused and misused in terms of interactions with our americans. tracking the impact of the issian disinformation inherently difficult. if we look back to 2011, there was a russians operations manual that said this information acts like invisible radiation, silently pushing you in the direction the kremlin wants. the truth is, foremost, you don't even know you are being attacked. able tohow russia was target and co-op unwitting americans into spreading their content. they even succeeded in transferring these efforts, this is one of the things most described in some of our hearings, from facebook into the real world. the example we like to site was

in the fall of 2016 where two thatan-created sites, one cater to the far right in texas, and the other that catered to a within texas, and half a world away, they created an event where these groups came into your conflict at a mosque in houston. think about that. the ability to manipulate americans onto the street and thank goodness for the police presence or we could had an event similar to the tragedy that took place in my state. all of this manipulated and driven from half a world away. the truth is, this threat continues to expand. these active measures have two things in common, first, they are effective.

second, they are cheap. we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on national security. at least in this area in terms of misinformation, our country onoften being rocked back our heels. the kremlin is spending pennies .n the dollar candidly, they are wreaking havoc. worst yet, they have not stopped. the threat did not go away on election day in 2016. russian operatives remain active hate and discord online. we have seen russian linked onounts pushing hashtags both sides of the nfl national anthem debate. we have seen russian organized b ots attack the president's national security advisor. hashtag release the

memo and we have even seen evidence of stoking anger on both sides of the been debate after the recent tragedy in the parkland shooting. in the this playbook is open. we have to worry about more than just russia. these tools can be used by other actors,china, nonstate and others, to influence and what can we do? there is no simple answer in this space. no single countermeasure that. the wave of attacks from russia. what carnegie's project means is that we have to take advantage and look at what russia seeks to take advantage of and amplify these divisions

in our country. it is focused on boosting cynicism and caring down western institutions from the inside. in response, i believe we need to start here at home. we need to recognize the threat, game plan and inoculate our society against these efforts. in order to do that, we need to understand the russian playbook and deliver a thorough accounting of what they did in 2016. this is why i believe our committee's investigation is so important. it's why i believe the molar inquiry is so critical -- the mueller inquiry is so critical. we need to get to the bottom of this, and do it bipartisan late. this is not a threat against republicans versus democrats, but it is a threat versus our

nation as a whole. a question about whether any americans knew or assisted in 2016 is vital. important, and more critical is making sure that we make clear that this threat did not end on election day and gains what mr. putin's are not to favor one political party over another, but to simply so discord and distrust within our country. the truth is, what we experienced was an attack from a foreign nation. next, we have to recognize we have much to do to strengthen our security and systems against these asymmetric that's -- threats. our strategies have not shifted aggressively enough to address these new threats in cyberspace and in social media. the truth is, if you step back

and look at how we spend -- ,ussia spent last year's budget it was about $68 billion. the united states of america , yet, 10 times that much i believe, we are often spending on weapons that were well-suited for 20th century conflict. we buy arms and materials to fight war, on land, in the air, and in the sea. i do not believe we shifted near enough resources to take on, where often times the 21st century conflicts will take cyberspace or in terms of misinformation and disinformation. until we do that, i believe the russians will continue to get a lot more bang for their security buck. no one questions america's superior technological advantages. did -- thatly, that

technological advantage and the dependence that comes with that advantage actually makes us more vulnerable in the asymmetric battlefield in terms of cyber and technology dependence that russia has chosen to attack us in. we must spell out a deterrence doctrine so that our adversaries don't see cyber attacks or misinformation attacks against us as a free lunch. the united states, has often done too little to respond to cyber attacks against us and our allies. respond, it has often been done extraordinarily quietly and are a one-off basis. that has clearly not been enough to deter our adversaries. we may need to make clear to russia, and for that matter to

other nations, that if you go about using cyber warfare or disinformation against us, we will call you out and we will punch back. we need to more quickly attribute cyber attacks, we need to increase the cost of these cyber attacks against our nation, we need to use robust sanctions and other tools. that should include the sanctions against russia passed overwhelmingly by congress for which the president is still refusing to implement. the sad truth is, we are handicapped in our response by lack of presidential leadership. we need a president who recognizes this problem, and not one who sees that any discussion of russian election interference as a personal affront. who will president

lead, not just a whole of avernment, but a sense of whole of society efforts to take on these challenges. we need someone that will actually unify our nation against this growing asymmetric threat. we can't let putin and his allies succeed. we have to, as a nation, learn to fight back and shine a light on this shadow conflict. we have to get our act together at home. we will still be shooting blindly into the shadows. thank you all very much. [applause] now i have to go back to my day job and save democracy. thank you all.

i'm with cbs news. we will spend the next torsion of time having a conversation with the panel and with q&a. i want to thank you for having us here, and this is life streamed so if anybody is blogging this on twitter, snapchat, please use #g lobalrussia. but richard is my global. this is the vice president for cardigan endowment where he oversees research and russia. mclachlan.t is john as lisa, she is a russian journalist and media manager. chief at it --e

of forbes and rbc. i want to thank you all for joining us. whatt to dive to your into the senator manchin. the president pugin state of the nation today and the two-hour speech he gave about bragging on the investment in nuclear technology saying he has invincible nukes. my question to you, what do you make of what he said 17 days of the election? was that a direct message to donald trump? >> i think it is a direct message to the russian voters. they say we are a few days away from what has been -- what has been a relation for pugin so he has very little to run on except for that russia is back in a major force in the world again. to be fearedtter than loved.

for him to play to a joe sixpack view in russia, that life may be tough right now going through different -- difficult economic times, at least, we are strong. whether that will be enough to create excitement is another story. basically, the election has and the self-selected opponents in the race are lackluster and not serious. a politicalded over system that is being asphyxiated. whether he can engage with the russian people is unclear. >> lisa, while he dedicated the large portion of his speech to rush's nuclear program and military, i'm curious to get your take as a russian national. your reaction to his speech because, blanketed in there, he talked about investing and russian infrastructure and cutting poverty by half. what is your take away as a russian to his message today?

lisa: first of all, thank you for having me here. on whatd percent agree andrew was saying about the major focus of this information effort. for russians, it is extremely important to feel that russia is and also, as the leader, you can be judged by the strength of your opponent. giving that, pugin addressed his speech to opponents, basically the united states as i'm guessing. it is important to have strong opponent and that means, for most of the population, is not strong enough to fight the strong counterpart.

that was a very specific and strong message. he also delivered that russia has a weapon that nobody else in the whole world has. that means russia is technically so advanced and this is so important, and that you guys need to be patient and invest in it. that means all russians are stronger than the rest of the world, despite olympic games and other things. [laughter] i think that message was completely and 100% addressed to beforeional ordinance elections. it was also hard to revive the ordinance for the selection because the result is very predictable. the result is more than 100% predictable. it is very hard to engage people . >> but they do want a significant turnout, right?

lisa: of course. it is a balance. if you're elected by more than 50% of the population, not just the voters that went to the election places. >> which is i -- which is why you hear people urging people not to vote because i can send a message to vladimir putin and embarrass him. john, something that lisa picked up on, when vladimir putin is bragging about a weapon that no one else has, in my mind, i think of how our president will react to that news. specifically since he has been pushing for greater investment in nuclear technology and calls for more nukes. my initial question, saying he is seeking to an obvious audience of russian voters, but, is he also speaking to the u.s. as well and waiting from a reaction from trump? john: i'm sure he is. i expect a tweet tomorrow

morning that says my missile is bigger than yours. [laughter] or something like that. i think having just the united states issue a nuclear posture review, we will have to look and i've only taken a beginning look at the weaponry. we will have to look at the characteristics of the weapons he is talking about here. one of the things going on in the world is, the technology is changing in ways that begin to erode some of the ways we typically have thougbo and the way we have typically thought about arms control, and about the potential use of nuclear weapons. oppose that on any grounds. think ine starting to parts of the world, and russia two, there are circumstances

that there might be permissible to break the nuclear taboo and use these weapons in some circumstances where you can control the impact. i think that is a grave mistake. that thought is out there. when he starts talking about new kinds of weaponry, it is bound to play into that debate. >> does it support president moneys call to spend more , specifically on our nuclear technology? john: i think he will interpret it that way, for sure. astonished if that wasn't the reaction we have out of the white house, you. >> some of your peers in the intelligence community have likened what russia did in the 2016 election to a political 9/11. would you go as far in saying that? john: it is always dangerous to use 9/11 and comparisons because -- ans an extraordinarily extra merry event in our history. that will hopefully never be

repeated. in a sense of it being a surprise, and a sense of it being novel, in the sense of it being something that we typically have not done very well, and all of those respects, . believe it is it also underlines something the senator said. that, i think i heard him say it this way, we shouldn't think of this as a new cold war. i think cold war metaphor gives us too much comfort. in a sense that we understood that. also, it could be seen as something that could have an end , and it did have an end. one had totwo sides, lose and they lost. that is how we have seen it. that is not the circumstance we

are in with russia. russia will not go away like the soviet union did. -- so we have to figure out how to deal with it and i'm sure we will talk about it. that is the real significance of what they did in 2016. -- the techniques we saw during the cold war, but it advances so far into the modern era that in moves us into a different strategic role. >> andrew, we have not been right this far in figuring out how to deal with russia and vladimir putin. president obama called russia a regional power. oilsey graham called russia in guest country -- companies as a country. romney is now giving praise to what he said back in 2012 following vladimir putin.

you can say both sides are right. what is the approach to addressing that conundrum then? andrew: first of all, we need to assess what is real and what is invited. today's speech is no different. putin likes to be talked about. all of the fixation on prudent, the portrayal -- all the , theion on putin portrayal, that is political gravy for him. what we need to step -- what we need to do is step back and say, this is not a cold war, this is a different leve rrisk-taking, a far bigger risk. we have at assumptions for the assumedyears that we are now wrong. we assumed that traditional dutchts of caution with would be very important for russian foreign policy, we have seen the opposite is true.

youris a way of seeing opponent on the spot. those are key parts of the russian playbook. the other assumption, they would focus largely on their neighborhood. and russian's priorities would be in places like estonia. but no, russia wants to mess with the united states. part of this has to do with the events of 2011, 2012, when we had big demonstrations in moscow after a murky set of shenanigans in the russian parliamentary election. and going into 2014, don'tssian government, i think is insincere about the stated goal of united states is to overthrow them and to pose an accidental threat to their -- existential threat to their regime. >> lisa, as the journalist, you have seen firsthand this evolution in russia and in vladimir putin's russia.

you've uncovered many stories there. most written -- most recently, putin's chef and his affiliation with russia's involvement in syria. none of this is a surprise to you, yet when you and i were talking, you will said you were surprised by what you saw in mueller's indictment. can you explain that? by the was not surprised actions described that happened in 2016, but i was really surprised that all of those actions were planned in 2014. when, for example, as a journalist, i had no clue, working it is media company, what is going on in some people's mind. that the whole

thing is in some way overestimated and underestimated. clear as the fact , the actionstions for the election outcome. i think that was just one of the minor factors of the whole result. i don't believe it was the only factor. in way it is presented now, some ways scares me because i can't believe russians changed -- completely changed the story line of american elections. in another way, from another point of view, i see underestimation of, let's say, smartness of people in russia in power. >> in determination.

lisa: in determination in the very early stages. ofn after russian elections 2011, that were considered by of american involvement in russian elections. frankly speaking, when you were notng that hopefully you'll face the same situations with election in the future, i don't believe in that. i think you will. now it is important to try to understand what does putin have , not what has happened previously. has a has --kremlin certain agenda for the future. >> lisa, how was this so-called victory or success for vladimir putin given that he most likely,

like everyone else, assumed hillary clinton would win the election. he most likely assumed that, in some way shape or form, the u.s. would retaliate. that investments for him was still worth it. we have not yet seen much of a retaliation. as that now emboldened putin to go on to bigger and even bolder initiatives? lisa: in the sense that you want me to answer a question, what is in putin's mind, but i don't know. [laughter] that is the problem. weaken the goal was to democrats and hillary clinton if she wins. ,ow they turned the situation another side one. they didn't expect this outcome, for, i don't know, at least 70%.

the techniques they used could be very efficient and, frankly speaking, it is very hard to fight with these techniques. using social from networks because social media something in our psychology. it is injection of propaganda into human brains. that is a way how people think. and this social media or other social media, you can't easily bend this -- you can easily bend this or say we will regulate it. that is very hard. >> john, this begs the question of what the u.s. will do going forward. as the senator said, we are weeks or months away from elections in the u.s.. we heard from intelligence chiefs a few weeks ago testifying they had not been president to do

anything and rich for the 2016 meddling -- in retaliation for the 2016 meddling. mike rogers said the president did not tell him to doing actions. how important is it for the president to speak out and give that order? john: i think it is extraordinarily important. my time in government left me with a lot of impressions. one of them is, the u.s. government, on something like this doesn't mobilize a fully until the president of the united states says mobilize. until there is that signal from the top, that is just our system. until the executive branch here is clearly from the leader of the executive branch, people may do what they think they are supposed to do.

a lot of people in the department of homeland security that are working on this and theg important things, but forceful application of all of our intelligence capabilities does not come about unless the president gives that push. that is one aspect of this. i thought about this recently and there really are a couple of aspects of our failures to respond aggressively. that is one, the other is, i suspect that we do not yet have a cyber strategy that we can all unite on. in part because, and i say we all as in all of the agencies and the whole of government to use that expression, in part because i don't think we have an accurate understanding of what happens when you engage in a cyber exchange. rogers was pressed to do more aggressive counter activities

against russian cyber. he said something to the effect that he is doing something that is authorities permit him to do. without knowing what that means, we can't judge the extent to which he is acting. i suspect he is doing more than we know. that said, those who think this is -- should turn into an i thinkpitched battle, one of the problems is that we haven't yet gained -- gamed out how this works in cyber. as with any conflict when you are inflicting let's say violence in this sense, a different kind of violence, you always have to have some thought of where is it is go -- where is it going? we have to be two or three moves down the chessboard. this is a frontier for us. i don't think we have thought this through very much. lack ofbined with a

push from the president, i think that leaves us pretty much floating in the water here and quite vulnerable to what the assians will attempt to do lisa so persuasively said they will continue to do. >> and your, i want to get to what russia is doing around the world. you did a piece on russia's involvement in other elections as well. john, but if we can stick on this topic for one minute. i was listening to general michael hayden earlier this week, the former director of the cia. he took the blame from the intelligence side saying, we dropped the ball in the sense that our intelligence community was focused on counterterrorism, and he11, al qaeda should of picked up on the warning signs even when russia invaded georgia.

he gave an example of getting a phone call from stephen hadley asking about that. the national security adviser at the time. they say give me our georgia guys. they didn't have any idea who they were. they were good guys but he had no idea who the people were. in hindsight, we should have picked up, our intelligence community should have picked up on what putin was thinking and doing as early as a decade or so ago. first of all, do you agree with him? and how important would that be? andrew: i have to agree with the general who is a good friend of mine. i greeted him in the sense that clearly, i don't think anyone in our national a security established on this coming. john: the intelligence, the policy side, the magnitude in which it hit us, that said, people were aware that there had

been a serious cyber operation in georgia. people were aware of the talking in there intelligence world for quite a while about the danger of hybrid warfare. a phenomenon here, i don't know whether mike hayden would agree, a phenomenon i noticed is that even though the intelligence community may be talking about something, and writing about it and testifying about it, people don't become seized with the threat until there is a very crystallized demonstration of that threat. this was true on terrorism. in the months before the years before 9/11, the committees and congress only held one conference on counterterrorism. it is at the moments where could see clearly, that have been the georgia event.

had we try to imagine where that could go and linked it to the doctrine. i have to agree with him. in other words, we could have sounded the alarm forcibly. i'm not sure people would have mobilized in response to the threat without the demonstration we have had. >> andrew, going back to your involvementrussia's in mexico and not just mexico, other elections coming up this year as well. you break it down russia's investigation -- russia's actions and focus specifically on mexico. while we have had administration and talkn lieu to it about the significance of what russia is doing, why are we not hearing more about it? andrew: it is one of those ironies where you have a whispering campaign that has seemed to initiate with the trump white house. with had secretary tillerson

starting to drop these hints that we are seeing the beginnings or initial signs of in thepaign of fake news run-up to the mexican presidential election. there is a political environment in mexico, as a result of the failures in the fight against corruption, dealing with the drug war, and all of the anger brewing tour the united states and the trump era. it is a very dynamic political environment. there is a populist leader who speaks and eight traditional, fiery praise for mexicans. that is the person known as an amlow. we see on social media and outreach, efforts by russian governments -- the russian government to embrace this. whether that tips political environment in one direction or another is very unclear.

on social media, mexicans are increasingly active, and we're seeing a disproportionate number on the discussion coming from abroad. upwards of about 30% from the last month of activities in the social media discussion is coming from abroad. from that present, the 80% of the traffic that is coming from russia, that is odd. >> you see similarities to our buildup in our election here. what about russia's role in venezuela? and russia's role in the middle east. i talk about venezuela but i want to get to syria and some of the news you where able to break his book. andrew: the situation in venezuela is a terrible human tragedy. the country is imploding. at various stages, there was this embrace, this bromance between him and hugo chavez.

buying expensive and significant weapons systems from russia. when the venezuelans had trouble to paying for those, it switched to a relationship on energy. one man basically launched a pet project to embrace the government of venezuela and to expand the commercial activity there. in recent years, as the government has gone through the political crisis and economic crisis, the russians have become a key source of balance with financing, food, and the government is in a desperate battle for survival. the russians are helping them keep afloat. when truck came into office, he is talking about a military option to throw the maduro government and oppose sanctions.

you have to talk about that with us and have inserted themselves. that follows what they see in syria, libya, where basically russia is not fixing problems or own venezuela or own the reconstruction of syria, but they are saying, we are at the table and the united states cannot boss other countries around anymore. that goes back decades in terms of what russia has been striving for. they wanted to create what they world where the united states no longer sits at the top of the global pyramid. in how the world key decisions are made. that is the world we have. >> you talk about syria. there had been concern from day one about a potential proxy war from the u.s. your piece that we talked about about his role in the russian forces in syria, he talk about the significance of that when it comes to you after

russia relations? let meirst of all, disagree with you about russian role in syria. is -- imy incentives , i just have as few facts about the role in the oil industry and recovery of the country. we reported recently that just before the recent bombing of the private army, they signed the roadmap for restoring the oil sector. i think russia has cleared russian companies, maybe state owned companies have a clear intention to participate in the syrian restoration. at least the part of syria that is controlled. , again, i don't have

facts, that i think it is plausible and possible that they will imply the same strategy as in chechnya, using certain resources to be able to rebuild the infrastructure there. this is a way how to gain something, from this operation. kind of a joke that you didn't mention argentinians and the story with the cocaine. [laughter] >> the so many jewels to discuss here. two want to give us a brief account? lisa: it is about 400 kilograms ended upe that somehow in the russian embassy. that was reported from the ambassador -- russian ambassador in argentina. that supposedly came at the a state that belongs to

organizesy that flights for senior officials in russia. that is an interesting story that is developing. we still don't know. >> it says a lot that that is the last story we are talking about. i want to spend the last few minutes on questions. before you do that, i want to ask you about what life is like as a journalist in russia. it is one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. you're now spending the majority of your time in the u.s.. talking a lot of time about journalists in the u.s., we are fortunate at the end of the day to be able to have our civil to -- civil liberties in america. it is not the same in russia. talk about the in's and out's about covering but american's kremlin. finally, you are able to

work in the united states is a russian journalist. that is a joke. [laughter] few explanatory words about my story. i'm currently at uc berkeley in journalism school, but i found it a news organization which is a website where we have a team in russia working in moscow. we have a little bureau that investigates and produces news mixed with our own scoops. our focus is following the approach. we are by friday and we translate some of our stories, the most significant ones in english so we can put it on our website. it is, again, talking about trolls, in some ways, the

dangers are highly exaggerated. free journalists and liver journalists are able to work in russia freely. whatnly thing is that, defines it as a percentage of risk. anytime you work and developing worlds and any places, you have a certain amount of risk. working in russia, being a journalist in 2005, working as a business journalist, i used to do very low risk. let's say was less than 5%. now the risk is increasing because the government puts more attention on the journalists. , fewerre very few of us than we had before but, still, there are some people, if you radio state owned

and thosen moscow, people speak very openly about problems that we have, let's say, journalists have. let's it one comes and promotes the liberal balance. it is a regime for journalists you facesome point, threats and harassment and any type of harassment. that is a risk that comes with this profession nowadays in russia. >> that says a lot that these independent journalists are primarily based outside of russia. some of the bigger no names including you. thank you for everything that you do in dissecting what happens in russia as a russian yourself.

i want to thank you both for guiding us through the next chapter in our relations with russia. we have 10 minutes left. but stick a question here. [indiscernible] is about 40% of russians because. what else would you give to that country on how to deal with the local russian population? whether to stay confrontational or to take into consideration concerns of russian speaking population like closing down russian language schools and language issues. what advice would you give to elected government? thank you. >> who wants to take that, and are -- andrew? andrew: this is a situation where a lot of people look at this. are try to manage competing situations, making

sure there are people that are prosperous, feel connection to europe, and feel the embrace of and our natoates allies which have guaranteed their security and the nato charter. for me, the challenge will be resisting the temptation to overreact and provocation. there were instances in the last couple of years where groups register of trouble and it is a balancing act of the government to make sure it is firm and does not invite the kind of trouble we have seen in other parts of the former soviet union. the situation, by comparison, is probably five -- four more manageable than a place like ukraine that has a russian war going on. in terms of also keeping you crane -- ukraine terminal. are the things the western governments can do to make the

situation more stable? i think one of best are alluded to a target rich environment and that will not go away. has to be onocus exposing the russian toolkit and providing support diplomatically, and other ways to countries in the neighborhood without overextending and sticking our hand in the propeller. that is a really constant and issue.ge -- challenging the administration is in a difficult part given trumps rhetoric on the campaign trail disparaging nato. we've seen senior members of his team reestablish credibility around it. we hope their voice continues to persuade at the end of the day. we are only the beginning of with a more audacious risk-taking russia. these are not issues that will go away by any stretch. >> you in the second row.

mary louise kelly, npr. i'm headed to russia next week to color that's cover the election which is a challenging assignment because it is difficult to drum up excitement in the newsroom about and asked -- and election which occur zero suspense of the outcome. my mind turns to another six years of pugin and what it will look like. what will you watch for in forley -- internally russians living through another six years and externally as russia exerts power on the world stage? john: i was thinking about this earlier when we were discussing things. looking six years ahead, it isn't that hard to figure out actually. what his basic emphasis will be. and we wereas --

also talking backstage about whether we have a danger of overestimating putin and seeing him as more than 10 feet tall. that is always a danger, but really he is rather good at strategy. it is not that hard to be good at strategy when you have absolute power. when we put together a strategy document in our country, it is weeks and weeks of bureaucratic discussion and then everyone is exhausted before you implement the strategy. were told during a visit to moscow, basically people get together once a week with putin and decide what to do. you're looking ahead to the next six years, i would say his goals are to be first, further consolidate his power at home, second, to increase his strength in the neighborhood, the areas of the former soviet union.

third, to weaken western institutions, primarily nato and the eu. and fourth, to increase russia's role in the world and and or has talked about that -- and andrew has talked about that. -- i wouldt is what take those three are for ideas and just wait for him to fill them in or think about how he might fill them in. that is how i would see the next two years unfolding. as a journalist, i feel more comfortable to ask questions than answers questions. let me figure this out in the shape or form of a question. the things i would follow for , first, willyears the [indiscernible] be blocked in russia?

concentrating about 50 million users with some video blogs having about 5 million subscribers for it. that means russia has, in some way, a free speech on youtube using western media organizations. that is the first thing i would look at. the second thing i would look at is, will be kremlin follow cheney's example of changing the power, and the system of reelection. that isd thing extremely important for all russian population, russian people, that is a key factor of success at my company. the rate.ople follow

let the predictions that give you sudden thoughts about russian economy predictability. the mostmber, today, recent prediction was about 60 rubles for dollars. that is about the current situation. that is something about the economy being on the same, approximately, the same level. it can be changed, but we will see. >> what is the likelihood we would be that she would be inspired over that? lisa: it is very likely. >> president for life. let's go to the back. the gentleman on the right. yes, right to there. you. yes. >> thank you very much.

i'm james from gilead sciences. i want to ask about soft power and maybe where this falls on the continuum. and the soviet union, we had and they did aba lot of good work in the smallpox eradication. as russia gets back on the global stage, is there a soft power component to this, particularly interested in global health if that is relevant. andrew: there are two aspects that i think a relevant. russia did not invent donald trump. there's a populist term unleased in western societies and they are pushing on every available door to amplify and expand that. italy is having expenses this weekend. the seen fragments about ways russia is amplifying sentiment and playing on the stirring of nationalism which will make a complicated political environment much more public. that's what a soft power,

israel. -- is real. particularly, it excels at the use of video, movies, tv to sell narratives to russia's neighbors and it is very potent. we are dealing with a russia that is gotten -- that has gotten a at spinning perceptions around the world that is favorable to its interests. as far as money, russia is not carrying a giant checkbook. most of the money is going for that were talked about today like expensive weapon systems. the available resources to do things like deliver things in a crisis situation, venezuela remains circumscribed. when they do stuff, even small,

it is the collection of those things that amplifies that russia is back and russia matters. they have played that fantastic all in syria which is by means a relatively modest footprint on their operation which is had a dramatic impact on the country steering the civil war. also, showing russia can mount a meaningful expeditionary force. >> i think we have time for one more. let's go to the woman on the left. yes, you. -- gameden't gained out how the warfare escalates in cyberspace. is that you, andrew said that? yes. have ation is, do we skill set to accomplish that

and, if so, how are they deployed? onrew: everyone who works cyber in the u.s. government says we don't have enough people working on that, nor do we have enough people who are technically qualified to do it. we have a lot of good people, but we don't have bought farms -- bot farms to give you an example. john: we are at an example of acquiring the skills and building them. in terms of what i said earlier, about understanding and escalate or a letter in something like ciber, my real analogy there is looking act of the nuclear era. the only way we came to understand that, was through arms control discussions, and through a lot of work on strategy and through concentration on capabilities of those weapons and so forth. this world is more

complicated than the cyber world because we are not talking about just a world in which we are dealing with nationstates, we are also dealing with nonstate actors. my answer to your question would 10,on a scale from one to at 10 was perfect progress in -- perfect preparation and resources, we are at about a six in terms of strategy for the problem. , and my timing government, people were working on strategy. it has moved along somewhat, but we are not at the point where we have a highly confident understanding of how this all works. >> the u.s. and russia do not have a monopoly on cyber tactics. your china, other players as well. john: exactly. we have nothing comparable to the record we built over many

years in arms control with nuclear weapons. this is a weapon that is not nuclear in that sense, but it is certainly nuclear in his capacity to influence things, change things, and inflict pain on populations short of physical pain. example, we, for have not had -- i refer earlier to the need for something that always crystallizes a problem. you would think the an offense the election would have done that. i'm not sure in amounts to the cyber poor harbor or cyber 9/11. -- cyber pearl harbor or cyber 9/11. this is all we talk about. people out in the country are not as focused on this as we are here in washington. there is not a national consensus yet, to my knowledge, on an appreciation of the problem as serious and and

infrastructure of support to create pressure to do something about it. >> i will end of my first question then, how much of that rides with the president and the administration to act on? effect er or george bush had not responded the way they did following pearl harbor -- john: i'm reading the latest biography of fdr, one of the striking things that is coming out was not there -- i was not there to observe this, but in the 1930's, particularly from -- was, fdr was a very very focused on the fact that trouble was coming for the united states and he had a deliberate strategy for moving the united states against a backdrop of very serious opposition that had broad public

support. he managed to get us there it did it take pearl harbor to take everyone over to that side of the spectrum. the long way to answer your question, but i think, until a president speaks to the country in a convincing way about the nature and seriousness of the problem and what we need to do about it, people will not take it that seriously. ask, whether to this particular president has the moral standing and persuasive powers to actually do that if he decided to do it. houston, we have a problem. [laughter] >> i hate to say it, but we will and on that note. i want to thank my panel and i want to thank all of you for coming today. it has been enlightening and we have learned a lot. hopefully, the conversation will continue. thank you.

[applause] chatter]nible ♪

>> c-span's washington journal's life every day with policy issues that impact you. coming up ready morning, in light of the school shooting in florida, a number of florida experts will -- a number of experts will weigh in on school safety. join the conversation all morning with your calls, tweets, and facebook comments. be sure to watch live eastern and join the discussion. >> tomorrow, the funeral service for the reverend billy graham who died last week at the age of 99. invited guests include family, friends, and dignitaries. the service will be held in a tent outside the billy graham library in charlotte north carolina. we will have a live coverage at noon eastern on c-span. this weekend, on book tv, saturday at 2:30 p.m. eastern, programs featuring guns and the second amendment starting with the president of the center for justice law school.

he examines the debate around the second amendment. then, the mother of one of the columbine shooters discusses her book, on the mother's reckoning, living in the aftermath of tragedy. and the former president of the national rifle association with his book "shall not be infringed: the new assault on your second amendment." then, at 10 p.m., join litman discusses her book "that's what she said: what men need to know and what women need to tell them about working together." at 11 p.m. eastern, jorge ramos examines what it means to be a latino immigrants in america with his book "stranger: the challenge of a latino immigrant in the truck era." on sunday afternoon, our special series is live with jeff. what book tv on c-span2 all weekend.

landmarkon c-span's cases, we explore the civil rights cases of 1883. the supreme court decision that struck down the civil rights of it -- civil rights act. harlan cast the lone vote in opposition in his dissent clips the legacy of the majority opinion. explore the case in the high court ruling with danielle, that dean of howard law school and a member of the commission on civil rights. watch landmark cases live monday night eastern on c-span, c-span.org, or listen with a free radio app. for background while you watch, or do your copy of the landmark cases companion book. it is available for a dollars $.95 plus shipping and handling cases.pan.org/landmark

for an additional resource, there is a interactive >> coming up, the white house hosting a summit on the opioid crisis. after that, today's white house briefing with the secretary sarah sanders. and later, vladimir putin delivering his state of the nation address. >> the white house hosted the summit to address the opioid summit. melania trump opened the event. speakers included veterans affairs secretary david shulkin, housing and urban developing secretary and carson, and health and human services secretary alex a start. kellyanne conway