tv Fmr. Natl Security Council Members on Russia- Ukraine War European... CSPAN September 19, 2022 10:05pm-11:10pm EDT
ended by these television companies and more. including medco. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ supports c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. former white house national scaredy counsel director for russia, the on the hill joins a brooking institute panel discussion on how the russia ukraine war is impacting u.s. foreign policy. european politics and european security. [background noises]
[background noises] [background noises] >> good morning everyone. welcome to the second panel of this form. many of you do not know me for a good reason. this is actually my first day at brookings. visiting fellow at the center on the united states and europe. it turns out brookings has a hazing ritual they make you moderate an all-star cast on your first day. so i have with me james gold geyer who is a visiting fellow
usc as well as of course professor at stanford and leading russia expert fiona hill is a longtime scholar at bookings with the various government jobs the senior and national security advisor and the author of very interesting book on pollutant as well as of course her recent work. who is the leading expert on transatlantic issues and all things european for the purposes of this panel as well as being the new director of cusa. so i'm going to start jim. on the previous panel you heard about battlefield dynamics as well as some of the critical security defense issues around the war stretching all the way to the pacific.
i think we want to take a longer-term view on this panel about the longer-term implications for transatlantic issues. jim, i want to start theo. since the end of the cold war, modern european security something that is dependent on a stable relationship with russia. that was a core element of our concept of european security. what happens now with the ukraine war that is change everything? how we establish this with russia at this point? x thank you, thanks to brookings for including me in this form. when welcome to brookings. she is amazing, we are thrilled
to have her here. was so kind at that kind of relationship we hope to have with russia i just don't think we can have that as long as of vladimir putin is in power. this is a regime trying to carry out a genocide against ukraine. trying to wipe out ukrainian evil, as a culture, as a language, as an idea. at the birth for just a minute that name his name is on the center. because what you are describing as to what we hope for in the post-cold war world in terms of relationship with russia that was what his job was in the eight years of the clinton administration. esther's aunt bench at the outset he starred as ambassador for the newly independent states. and a year later became deputy secretary of state. and did that job for seven years
in the clinton administration. his job was to bring the europe policy and the russia policy together. it was to establish and integrate europeans into europe. and to try to create a partnership with russia. your people you want to focus on central and eastern europe did not to worry about russia. others want to focus on the partnership of the russia and did not care as much about central and eastern europeans. the clinton approach was to do both and there were lots of successes. russia joined nato's partnership for peace. russia participated in the implementation force after the dayton peace accords were signed. the implication in bosnia. russia signed a founding act as it was called in 1997 to establish a new relationship between nato and russia as nato was enlarging.
then there was the diplomacy to end the war the co- civil war which played a critical role working with the russians in the finished president. lots of successes lots of hope they could actually have this relationship. there was a belief, the idea was at the time you can unstable european security order without russia. well here we are today. you can't have a stable european order with russia. russia such undermine the european security order. i think the bite administration policy of punishing russia we heard in the previous panel, the sanctions, isolating diplomatically and leaking russia militarily with support through ukraine is really the only approach that we can have towards putin and russia.
unless and until there is a different leader in russia. >> i would love to have fiona come in for that question. but before that, and jim. so that re- fighting the cold war? >> what can we do? we have the leader that we have in russia. it is worth noting, he did invade ukraine in 2014. the un system was founded to try to prevent big countries from just taking territories from their neighbors by setting their forces across the border. and we did still try to pursue a cooperative relationship with russia. we are still trying to pursue up until this expanded invasion started.
but i think again, the nature of this expanded invasion the brutality of the attempted genocide i think he has created this reaction were the only thing we can do is try to punish, isolate and weaken. quest can you unpack this european security without russia? >> obviously this is a huge question everybody is trying to figure out. jim has given us the frame of where we started off in the 1990s after the collapse of the soviet union. we have to remember the soviet union did not actually collapse or is picked apart some of its own elites. that's actually a great book by a russian historian which the actual book is that the first
president of an independent russia is the person who actually pulled it apart because of a power struggle with gorbachev. that was somewhat unexpected for everyone looking at the history of the soviet union. the reason i want to talk about this as we are now marking the recent death of him. looking back over the period of the last 40 plus years gorbachev coming into power 1985. thinking about what he is trying to do. roberts office also setting out to try to stabilize the relationship he did not to pull this country apart that's what happened because of the complexity of the problem that confronted him is try to figure out how to reform the soviet union put the whole union on a
different footing. he actually up killed. a union treaty. it was the desire to get rid of them it was in the way of other people's power is ultimately what he found it. >> we might see something tried to set a little more over the microphone. we have to watch the dynamics in front of russia very carefully in terms of answering this question. russia remains a very complex place. we think about black vladimir putin. and it was his decision to launch this war. part of it is his thinking about ukraine are only a handful of people sitting on the stage who could anticipate his decision to invade ukraine. i go anywhere they thought it would. part of russia itself. it's also people who live in russia. see hundreds of thousands of
russians want to be in a more stable relationship but the rest have left. from scene and off the lights of politicians and she got all the plane to come here. people in 1990s there people here, people all over europe were also thinking to themselves about how russia would have this relationship. the key position figures the been looking at very closely. use of salih sitting on the colony recently in the most bizarre punishments inflicted against him. the prisoners being told to not even look at him. discovers how dangerous he is to
putin's power. the grip vladimir putin has on the system is also faltering. there's a whole succession of geriatrics directed this area said recent security unfortunate and healthy at the moment. was someone who no longer looks infallible. these are all the issues were talking about. the glass panel talk about the various constraints on the military energy and otherwise. others start to question what he is got out of this war. not just a brutality over 11 million russians and your gradients and others. millions of others have some ukrainian heritage are feeling a bit ostracized where people have been density of relationships
since going to be not just about what we decide about how other russians and other russian groups react as well paid that's part of unpacking this discussion. but are we there? >> we are not there yet. talking to many russian colleagues there are others worried the future of their country. this got to be a lot more battlefield pushback disasters and a lot more pressure getting to the winter as well as going to be pretty critical for people around who tend to be able to put some pressure on him and others i think genocide here we've got to start passing thing in short, medium and longer-term for the short term we are where we are.
the medium-term as doug said on the last panel and others were talking about the impact. it's going to make that consequences felt even more so. and over the longer term there's a segway we've had that experience with germany twice. world war i, world war ii. much as driven by german themselves over time. it's got a lot of lessons to learn from that how it crossed relationship over the longer term. >> you just arrived from germany. in fact were there last week. chancellor scholz has talked about. and german thinking about european security and germany's own role in it. what is the mood like in germany? >> thank you.
and thank you everyone for asking me too be on this panel at this time. i do want to add a footnote to the russia turkey business. to any of us in the wonderful 1939 movie with greta garbo marvin douglass douglas that ends with a happy ending. [laughter] the frenchman and the soviet women meet. it's a happily ever after. anyway. i thought that was important. [laughter] i came back from germany on saturday, having spent a rather week in germany. middle of a battle about tanks. which in the larger sense is a battle about. i doing to say i occasionally read in my twitter feed that
germany isn't doing anything to help ukraine. i think that is not quite fair. there is a very long list of stuff on the german government website that you can check. but the ukrainians themselves to be the first to say some heavy weaponry about germany has given them more recently especially the multi rocket launchers have indeed played a great role in ukraine's recent spectacular successes in pushing the grains back on the battlefield and establishing a much longer front. to the point earlier about ammunitions that kayla also made they have in fact delivered great quantities of ammunition.
that's not to say we couldn't do more. it is also true despite the very serious determination of not just the chancellor but his cabinet to pull through. not just on the promises of february 27 speech, despite the urgency of concern in germany about the impact of what is now and has been for about two weeks a completely gas cut off but mitigated only by the fact we were able to fill storage capacities to nearly 90%. in the fact have had good weather so far. everybody knows as samantha was saying in the first panel this is going to be agreement winter for europe. those storage capacities germany does have the largest storage facilities in europe.
they are full they provide for all of germany's consumer's needs for a few months that fit. also it is not account for the fact we might want or need to provide for our neighbors. so i think right now in the state of combination and determination. i got it because putin is not stopping. >> let me ask you about how this is shaping internal european politics. every experience is different. we have elections coming up in italy. we just had in sweden with the rise of the far right. then there's always the worry
this will really have either a destabilizing impact on european politics, domestic politics are really lead to the rise of the far right in some countries. is this exaggerated? >> is not of course not. for i address set out to remind us of just how ordinarily enterprising lately european reaction happened. i want to preface that have been so extraordinarily decisive and supportive. which might french colleagues might have said sadly returned to paris if you don't. i wasn't evident after the withdrawal from afghanistan it go this way. the truth is this is historical
in its depths. and yes his generosity towards europe. i don't know anyone or any sane person who's not actually grateful for that. the european union also has done by his own standards unusual things right not only has been very diplomacy i think it has surpassed itself. it has played an essential role in the sanctions repeatability power efforts. and they played a great role and that idem ministration is fully aware of the degree to which european power asked us you have
even funded military supplies which again is a historic first. that's offered ukraine and more nova effective again. star know if beth made a bet on that a couple of months ago and not her wildest dreams. we are also seeing extraordinary insanity of the european. being done about that. for a party of russian coal, russian wild and other russians and cut us off from gas slightly earlier than we were. thank you very much. that also stops the question of refunding the russian effort?
should internal conversations about the degree of neglect neutrality. which is interesting. that is i think it interesting phenomenon. which i think it's useful. in the european commission finally cracking out on hungary. that is it. you are completely right. the divisive elements did not start. the extraordinarily narrow when of the french election >> serious presidential candidate. in germany they're hoping to
make the political division. conspiracy theory since sought. all of those pleasant prospects. we are lucky in that germany are not going to have significant state elections and any of the places therapeutically strong within the next one and half years. >> there is of course the question of the uk relationship with eu which we can say the jury is still out. that is the question which had become insanely divisive if london allows that. you are entirely right. there are still record gas prices. there is record is entirely possible a great deal of political division. least are my own country if you
look at the polls this may involve a certain degree but we intermingled with link and the darker whistling in the forest. that's before the winter. but still, i'm going to get them brownie points for saying that. and for wanting to think they have the courage to be that strong in the winter. we will see. i do think we should also talk about tokyo and greece. start heating up in our proliferate. that is also something we should be confronted about. >> that want to come to you. about the rest. we are very focused on the transatlantic relationship. but last week, thursday and friday had organization cap
a significant get too carried away a time for a world of time for peace. public comments trade which i found significant. the fact that he said that in public taking a very cautious approach to this whole conflict. there's so much rising out from india which is an existenial threat from china. exchanges in the hamel areas. india having a mild rebuke of russia is the balance of its relationship with china is fairly significant. it's the whole we always talk we talk about from our perspective.
we tend to like out of that is the history of our engagement. we looked at from the transatlantic perspective. we look at it from the elite bubble (this lot a public level support. a lot of people are framing this promotes. the panic about what could be lifting the frame of world war ii. that is tenuous. fallback hazard to the end of world war i will become a republic with an independent perspective may set all of this and europe were all of those
were forced. people take him at his word and look at that for himself or the home front support it was very important. you you look at the shanghai cooperation organization the reason that would set up is not with opposition to the united states or to nato, it was set up to manage the rise of china within a regional context. the shanghai population organization was all about china. and how to manage this superpower on very sensitive borders and russia all try and figure out how they're going to navigate completely reality. what was seen over time as china has enabled not to recognize things that in the neighborhood.
because is not just the shanghai corporatization that public security arrangement you read russians did try to create cause someone to recognize the annexation of crimea. before that was a georgia. each time you see behind-the-scenes the chinese did not like that. so here again we see the shanghai cooperation organization putin had more knowledge china may have a different perspective on how things are going. elf russia succeeded in putin succeeded in forcing the capitulation of ukraine those first weeks or so of the invasion we might be a different place for but he hasn't. art where we are now. it's clear there's other
countries that don't like this at all. in fact the image of putin is an infallible or is rather not infallible but is fallible. not being as powerful as everybody assumed. because russia's pull troops out including central asia to go to fight for ukraine. because they seem to be invading. announcing a fight to war going on over disputed and can't imagine it's happened in the past of russia been the arbiter. another outbreak which right on turkey's border the assumption
here in some kind of conspiracy theory. between russia and turkey. it's actually more likely it's because russia is no longer able to force the various parties into negotiating the role it would like too. the occasion to talk to demetri it was the spokesperson for putin. immediately after the health associates recognize and then also recognizes this context. he says they won't because we told them not too. that was a public comment. that just kind of underscores the way russia used to operate in the region. i think to be to watch the
different dynamics that. there's a lot of effects in this country. project relationships. >> and jim, let's come back to the u.s. which is clearly leadership and organizing a very united and robust response to the russian invasion of ukraine. but given what we spoke about in the first panel and given the story fiona is laying out in these other theaters what's happening in asia with taiwan in the pacific, is this the level of attention to the security sustainable long-term?
>> that is a great question. this is not what the biden administration came into office thinking. they were focus, really focused you're going to focus on the competition with china. edit president biden's first meeting with president putin in june 2021 the meeting after becoming president was the meeting in geneva. president biden have been talking about hoping for a stable and predictable relationship with russia. which was really realistic. i think putin is predictably unpredictable. i don't think he was looking for a stable relationship with the united states. i was credit for the framing at the time but actually think it has helped a lot.
i think the fact that president biden had made an effort of bringing the allies together and gave the nines export credibility. because the united states had made an effort with putin. and of course putin blew everything up with the expanded invasion. again, it's not the fact that the bandwidth of the leading policymakers the next aids, the president others within the bureaucracy, the resources, then that this was desired at the beginning of this presidency. because really the way they look to russia and europe it was not about russia and europe is about how they fit into the broader competition with china. the focus on europe what is what europeans are you going to be able to do for us, with us and our competition with china?
it was about helping russia could just stay quiet. so that the united states can focus on china. the course that did not happen. there are troubling signs last year with respect to the relationship with the europeans. complaints about lack of consultation but afghanistan with rachel, the complaint by the french. but, the administration clearly stepped out with the response of the expanded invasion of ukraine. they've done this with your corporate is set up as well
opportunity for nato. the transformed northern europe. they have shown themselves quite adept don't have much of a choice undermine the united states to undermine europe allies have to respond. with reset battlefield success joe think we've reached a threshold here in this country where it is no longer possible
to scale back on support for ukraine? asked a question about domestic product x basically u.s. politics. >> i think at brookings has been running a series of public opinion survey since the spring question about what are you going to tolerate his support. great in this war causing problems here at home to the biggest impact on all of us is the energy prices. how much are you willing to tolerate? it was interesting. they public opinion survey shows strong support, a little dip in the backup to strunk's apartment may or so. i think we see in europe i think they see what is at stake. at least so far to accept
personal pain in light of what is happening. i think part of that is also common when it's think the photos of what is coming out of your grade with the russians and the ukrainians. they have increased gas prices and certainly there are segments of the population with increased prices are really getting quite hard. we should not undertake that. but, people here are not being subjected to genocide efforts and attempted genocide in these mass murders and crimes against humanity. exit thank you. and let's get a few questions from the audience. the gentleman here in this row.
>> thank you very much. i am benjamin retired diplomat. russia attacked ukraine there have been a lot of questions about how it is conducting the war. that said, place compartments on the quality of u.s. media coverage of the conflict in terms of objectivity, balance and completeness. including should she watch the bar and could it have been avoided? thank you. >> very good question. let's think of our questions judo guests, the document over there has raised end. i, thank you very much. the panel before focused on the lack of strategy. the fact is no clear strategy of what's happening but seems to me
one to see the reaction of the u.s. generally it's what you're describing is both reactive and transactional. there is a clear doctrine how nato came to be after the second world war. kind of post- collapse of the soviet union. there's a kind of clear doctrine about what was happening with the kind of expectation perhaps russia was a part of that. but seems lacking of this is going to be cohesive both between the u.s. and its allies, so keeping countries together in terms of popularity what is the underlying doctrine? is it necessary to doctrine? if you have any sense but that might be, that is my question. >> and the gentleman here had a second burst. >> thank you. from the brazilian embassy. what scenarios do you consider
most likely in the coming months in ukraine? and in any of that scenario there is room for negotiated solution? >> negotiated settlement or cease-fire or peace? let's us get these questions let's get the answers for now. and perhaps if we can do another round after words. will go in this order, doug. techs were going to get to know each other. [laughter] maybe will do it next week. [laughter] there is also a dog. sure is a wonderful guide for. >> are both really nice request he looks much younger than i am. it's probably happy about that. [laughter] this question overarching strategy is a broader challenge for us, for the united states. because we had a frame and we
had a strategy for about 25 years. george h.w. bush went to west germany in may of 18 met and talked about free. that really was the guiding idea behind u.s. policy it u.s. policy with our european allies from 1989 -- 2014. they're going to try to have peace. and also the policies as a result. nato enlargement, eu enlargement, effort at the same time to create a partnership with russia. the efforts with turkey. the effort to ends what was the brutality by the government in the balkans. all of these things went together as part of a broader
strategy. he then president biden last year it was using that language. it really has not been relevant since 2014. i do think we need to have a new strategy. as i said at the outset the issue right now in the near term is how do we have a strategy to build a stable and secure europe? at least right now try to keep russia out, whatever the prospects are at later she tried to bring russia back in. just one word on this negotiation. the challenge of a negotiated solution, how could you imagine this happening right now? the ukrainian government started secret negotiate solutions would have to pursue it a diplomatic solution with the president putin who has been leading an
effort to eliminate ukraine as a country and as a people. they would have to believe whatever solution they agreed to with putin that he would honor it. and he would not can i don't see how you have a negotiated solution where putin is the other party. >> i completely agree with cnet for a long time. probably should not of been looking at 2014, and also showed up the policy of our approach at
the time. i've spoken before about the push by georgia and ukraine to get an action on data paid the fact of the summit in 2008. that did not transpire but then they got an open door which was the worst of all worlds there's no thinking with it and up they suggest they would not of done. there is no strategy or thinking around that. let's now write a book and not slunk beyond nato trying to impact the way you might think about all about security. in fact now it's got more nato with finland and sweden joining the alliance. but not joining because they want to go back to a strategy we had for the last 30 odd years. but because they are just recognizing it's only mechanism the only institution is still functioning to have some
semblance we could no longer seek to keep the peace but address the situation at hand. and again sweden and finland join the package with defensive made it very clear where they've done this. it is because the nature of the crisis of brutality the fact this was an unprovoked attack. didn't have anything to do with nato but was also a part of the whole of front that russian pooch and ukraine and other countries going in any of the different directions away from russia's political security and economic orbit. also, the irresponsibility of flirting with nuclear weapons which we discussed on the last panel finland and sweden affect was leading the charge on all of the movement and the united nations to get rid of nuclear weapons. and now they are joining a nuclear alliance because of the
way putin is irresponsibly playing with this sprayed the messaging for this is yes, we need a different security framework. sweet it must be part of this. i think going on that is going to be the big question. but it is not clear what the direction will take. because of this it sure what to do with russia over the short, medium, long term. countries like finland, sweden, norway, turkey and many others cannot ignore russia. it's like israel they call them the neighbor to the north that is where russia's operating there as well but we are also going to have a much larger thinking about european security. i was mentioning that before. i don't think we you consider pivoting to china anymore because china pivoted towards nato and the united states and europe as well. on present she told the world there was no limit to the partnership with a brush on the of the invasion, criticized nato very heavily. also in response to nato
formulating its own strategy thinking about china. i think we now see we have to have a three and 60 perspective on our security. in effect from college from brazil asking questions very concerned about ukraine's not going to affect your reach in the western hemisphere but we forget this very deep relationships with russia and the soviet union going back more than a century with latin america also with asia and africa, china and russia in different theaters as well but we have have a much broader perspective than we have already. really i will admit it depends what you mean about media coverage. we can get one thing on fox news and other on using the bbc. we've got all kinds of other countries we can all access.
most people including younger generations get their news from i would say from media, facebook, tiktok, instagram, all kinds of people. i asked my daughter the other day which are news from i thought maybe i should checks of the sources as because everybody's getting a different perspective. that's part of the thrust of your question here. yes, you can actually get really good coverage of what's happening if you read all over the place. but that puts the responsibility on you. we have long past the day when we have been provided with one source of information. were all sitting around the radio listening to the bbc were abc and cbs and nbc for example. so media coverage is like shopping in the supermarket. it's one of the same tractor going to have to dress and think about. on how we process all of this. and that goes to the question
about could the war been avoided? i think it is partly the fact we tend to think of it in putin could have avoided this he could've decided not to do. in fact he made the decision to invade ukraine for this is his decision on fabric 24 he thought he could get away with it. he thought we were all distracted. and he thought zelenskyy would flee in the whole edifice he thanks about and ukraine were completely crumbled for the problem there's he relied on the reporting which is domestic intelligence. we all saw the pictures of the run to the war where's head of foreign intelligence was completely shocked. he is like a what? or doing this? you probably knew this was going to be a disaster. lots of people in the russian system knew this is going to be a disaster. people might've listened to them
and heard them but he decided to do something else. so putin having a much more diverse set of information with his own thinking at all kinds of different perspectives around him maybe we would not be here. that's what i making a plea for here. or erring all kinds of different perspectives in different inspirations for the only thing we get to resolving these issues is to take your really broad look on top of strategy. putin could have had the strategy, it was the wrong one give any particular contracts for what he wanted to do as well. >> so in your article with angela in the current issue of foreign affairs, you talk about this transformation putin has had on ideological, slightly opportunistic leader to someone who is a revisionist in the sense he is all about making russia great again.
ex is not the only person in the world that things like that. he's been at this for 22 years with the fact is we should not be shocked by putin taken this decision either. we have been watching very closely would have seen his thinking. it goes back in part to 2007 the speech he made with munich he put everyone on notice no more mr. nice guy. sucks were the fault revisionist mode about post-cold war ropers strategic perspective on europe that's driven united states viewpoint. at the time he's and gradually built himself up into a frenzy about ukraine. i think he is completely irrational place doing it from his own perspective. but we can see this building from 2011 and 2012. part of the problem is were not always a posture to keep an eye on all this. and our intelligence services
and ex work doesn't excellent job of seeing this coming. but we do not always put all the dots together. like what happened in 911 lead to be working very closely with our partners as well. we look up the french did not believe it for a second period and there were many others that didn't. the the germans reluctantly accepted something's going to happen but hope it could be staved off. and many others saw this coming as well. they have never dropped the ball on this. we have to start thinking one is trying to find out were resolvers. think eventually to what solutions? how do we all pull together? >> there was skepticism prior to february 24 about the u.s. assessment that putin is about to invade ukraine. but one of the unintended consequences of this whole conflict has been the impasse in
the global south in the sense that they have not accepted western versions of this conflicts. to this day many countries, their leaders and their public opinions describe it as an nato provocation. and that battle for the narrative is still very much alive. it looked very much as though that particular group of countries was in the process of changing their minds. not because there's genocide happening agreement putin as seen is no longer being infallible. >> changing. >> yes exactly. >> is now the possibility that putin might not win. >> exactly. may i say something about the
strategy point? on the border perhaps three weeks ago i was in finn marked the no wage and providence that borders russia. this is courtesy of the norwegian defense ministry who showed us the border. the border guard told us on the other side there'd been russian elite regimens among the first to be sent to ukraine were decimated there and not replenished. the land border is relatively calm. what is still really worried the norwegians is a fact on the peninsula and its largest concentration of strategic nuclear weapons on the planet. if putin decided to engage and submarine diplomacy, parade russian submarines up and down the norwegian border that would be the norwegian coastline.
hypocrisy if we are talking honestly and i think i can see how somebody of the mindset who seemed a small and frustrated man to me you can see how he would have come to the idea that this was the time to give a gentle push and i think frankly we have also priced ourselves with the intensity of our reaction but on the strategy point, i say this because this is something we are not entering a cold war or a new era what we are looking at is where autocrats are trying to prove
the built-in vulnerabilities and see how far they can push us and see where they can find leverage and they have many different opportunities and means of doing that and that is the challenge that we stand before right now. we have been successful but it is by no means over as everybody has said. one point that seems important i said earlier that the administration seems to have discovered peace in europe is meaningful to it and let's keep in mind what putin is doing is not just about ukraine but also rolling about the security
of course they see that different media organizations described as different. that's got to be terrifying to anybody that is a friend of the united states whether we live here or not and at the same time the europeans are profoundly aware of the many ways in which they are also profoundly aware that they are going to have to do more for themselves and that's the big conundrum and of course it's made more complicated by the fact that the major powers in europe one quick
comment, and you read the food security and i presume that will come up on the next panel but we are going to have to rethink the way that we engage with partners outside of the space. they've been engaged in this for all kinds of concerns and look at the specific regions in the middle east and around the world are also wondering what the impacts are going to be and worry about energy supplies. people are also worried about food. we are never really fracturing
in all of these fundamental issues. this will also share the way we talk about this conflict and the way that we engage moving forward. >> this is becoming an important talking point for putin. much of the exports are going to rich countries. thank you all. i'd like to thank the panel for the conversation and i think we are wrapping up now, but we will be moving to the third panel immediately after this. thank you. [applause]
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on