 Welcome to all of you to this event on media information and the U.S.-Russia relationship. I'm John Chorchiarri. I direct our Wiser Diplomacy Center here at the Ford School. And I'm delighted to co-host this special event with our friends from the U.M. Center for Russian East European and Eurasian Studies. seldom have ever since the Cold War has the U.S. relationship with Russia had more obvious importance whether we're looking at Ukraine and the impeachment process nuclear politics authoritarian currents in Eastern Europe or events in Syria and Iran. The relationship has profound regional and global ramifications. In many ways the relationship is of course rocky and even adversarial marked by conflicting interests and ideological tension. Media information and disinformation play crucial roles in how the U.S. and Russia engage one another and how public audiences view both of them. This isn't an easy time for journalists or for diplomats working on the U.S.-Russia relations but both have crucial roles to play within and between the two countries. And that's why we've assembled this special panel with our experts today here at the Ford School. We'll start by introducing Ambassador Susan Elliott who is on your right, my left. President and CEO of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy. She served in a number of senior diplomatic roles including most recently a civilian deputy and foreign policy advisor to the commander of the U.S. European Command. Prior to that she served as U.S. Ambassador to Tajikistan. She's also been a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs and has served in Russia in Northern Ireland, Peru, Greece and in roles at Main State including Deputy Executive Secretary. And so she brings a wealth of practical experience and expertise on U.S.-Russia relations and the surrounding region. In the center Dr. Yevgenia Albats is a Russian investigative journalist, political scientist and author and a radio host. She is a 2019-20 distinguished fellow at UM's International Institute and Wiser Center for Europe and Eurasia. Since 2007 she's been a political editor and then editor-in-chief and CEO of the New Times, a Moscow-based Russian language independent political weekly. It went digital in June 2017 when its distribution and sales were severed by the Russian authorities. Since 2004 she's hosted Absolute Albats, a talk show on Echo Moskvy, which is the only remaining radio station of its type in Russia presenting a liberal view. She's been an Alfred Friendly Press Fellow assigned to the Chicago Tribune, a Neiman Fellow at Harvard and a Fellow at Kelly's Writers House and Perry House at the University of Pennsylvania. She graduated from Moscow State University and got a PhD in political science from Harvard. She's taught at Yale and at Moscow's Higher School of Economics until 2011 when her courses were canceled at the request of top Kremlin officials. She's a member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and she's also the author of four books related to the history of the KGB. Just as to me is our own Ambassador Mel Levitsky, a professor of international policy and practice at the Ford School and a retired career minister in the U.S. Foreign Service. Ambassador Levitsky is also a senior advisor to the Wiser Diplomacy Center and to the Center of Russia, Eastern European and Eurasian Studies. He's been Ambassador to Bulgaria and Brazil, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics Matters and Executive Secretary also at the State Department, Deputy Director of the Voice of America. He also has a bunch of Russia related experience. He directed the State Department's Office of U.N. Political Affairs and served as officer in charge of U.S.-Soviet bilateral relations and also served as a political officer in Moscow. So you've got a tremendous amount of expertise on the topic at hand. Just a word on format before I hand it over to Mel to moderate a conversation. After he converses with our special guests, you'll have people going around with note cards that you can write down questions. They'll then be passed here to the front where two of our Ford School students, Gordon and Nathan, will ask a representative sample of your questions to the panel. And then after the session at 5.30 we'll move outside for a reception including an introduction of a gift of paintings donated to the Ford School by Bill Manthorpe, donated by his late wife Judy Manthorpe. So please join me in welcoming our special guests including Bill Manthorpe here to the Ford School. Okay. First off, rather than say Madam Ambassador, Doctor, Ambassador, let's use Susan Yevgeny and Mel. How's that? Okay, fine. Perfect. Perfect. I guess things in various languages in Russian means chalk, I guess, Mel. Mel? Yes. And I preferred it when I was Ambassador to Brazil because Mel means honey in Portuguese. So whether I'm chalk or honey, you could make the determination. Well, thank you both for doing this. This is a really terrific time to have this conversation especially because yesterday and this morning we have some new news from Russia about what looks like a planned governmental shake-up. I suspect that the end result will be to give Mr. Putin a little bit more power beyond 2024, but I'd like to hear your beyond 2024 when he can't run for president again. But I'd like to hear your opinions on that as well as we talk about the media. So my experience basically was during the Cold War. The Russian media at the time was completely controlled in a way that very few people would read Provider as Vestia. People looked for other sources than the nightly news program Vremia. People listened to shortwave radio at one point. I was deputy director of the Voice of America, which was supposed to broadcast as the BBC objective news, but also gave a sense of what U.S. policy was. It was Cold War and we used a number of devices rather than use hot war to try to influence the opinions of both countries because the Soviets also had their own broadcasting mechanism when we had the various magazines that we exchanged. So during my time there was always this theory of convergence. I know you will remember this. There was some theory back when I was a student here at the University of Michigan, for example, that's a long time ago by the way, that in fact the two systems would converge. We would become more like the so-called socialist system. They would become more free and open and more democratic and there were a number of scholars who actually thought that there would be a convergence. That didn't happen during the Cold War. It was an organizing principle for U.S. policy. I remember Georgiy Arbatov, who was head, was a Central Committee member at the time when I was in Moscow. His son is now prominent I guess in Russia. But I remember he said when the Soviet Union was breaking up, we're going to play a great trick on you. We're going to take away your enemy. So if you think about that, during that Cold War period over 40 years, U.S. policy was centered on that conflict. And when it was gone, we did search for purpose for a while. Now it's kind of back, not in the same ways but in certain ways. And so we want to talk about this. But what I'm really interested in hearing from you two, you have more knowledge, particularly current knowledge on this, is so how do people in Russia get their information? What do they base their opinions on? What's the role of social media? I mean it's very strong in the United States of course as well. Are they reading newspapers? I know the Russian population when I was there was terrific readers of books. Everybody carried a book on the subway on the metro. Everybody was reading something or another. Once in a while they'd get a book from, for example, Kurt Vonnegut who was published via publisher in Moscow. So if we take about five to ten minutes, however much you would like, to kind of discuss, so where do we stand with the media? You have, of course, direct experience. You were there recently as well. Let's try to get a sense of what is control. Are there some pockets of free expression? You know we all read about Navalny who is leading a, what would have been called a dissident movement. I'm not quite sure what you would call it now, but certainly a popular movement that at least has some expression that can get out of the country a little bit easier than it was then. So we're going to look at that. So what's the role of social media? What's the role of the regular media? How do Russians get news? And give you one more example. I have a student who came to me last year, an undergraduate student. I don't know if she's here. And she was going to work for a U.S. consulting firm in Moscow as an intern. Her parents were a little concerned. It wasn't a regular kind of internship with, you know, under the auspices of the embassy or something like that. And we talked over a period of time. She decided to go. And so she came back and the other day, two days ago, she came in and we talked. And so I learned a lot about what the young people, because she hung out with a bunch of young people, both Russians and some foreign students and others. And it turns out that social media does, in fact, have quite an influence. How much in terms of the more adult, older population is another question. So these are things that we want to cover. Let me then, oh, and may I say one word about the pictures? So Bill Manthorpe, when we were in Moscow, and I was a second secretary and I was in charge of looking at things like Jewish immigration. This was during the period of detente in the Nixon administration. And so I was out in the street a lot. You know, you've heard about what is the street saying? What are people saying? I met with a lot of artists and writers, many of whom didn't write officially but wrote under the table for the drawer. And Bill and Judy Manthorpe were in this diplomatic complex. We were on 7th floor, Joan, 9th floor, 8th floor. They were few floors down below. There was a funny elevator that went up and down. All the rooms were bugged, of course, so we, you know, we knew they were bugged. It didn't really affect the conversation too much because we weren't going to discuss classified information. But Judy was a wonderful painter. And she painted all kinds of styles. So Judy unfortunately passed away three years ago. Bill lives in Delaware, near the coast. And we talked over a period of time about bringing Judy's pictures here of Moscow. She painted several pictures of Moscow to here as we received this award of a grant from the U.S. Russia Foundation, perfect. And so you'll see those outside and I want to thank Bill for, I mean, we worked on this over a number of months and this is really for us. I like Judy a lot. My wife was very good friends with her as well and it's a really terrific tribute to her. So now let's get to it. May I ask you, Evgenia, if you would give us some thoughts on, since you were in media, had various experiences, good, I suppose, in some cases not so good in other cases. What's the role? And is there a future for the media gaining more presence in Russia life? And then I want to talk about this new kerfuffle, as they say. So please. First of all, thank you very much for inviting me for this event. I'm really honored to speak here. I'm going to give a special lecture on Russian media 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall at the end of this month. Otherwise, the center, so I would talk specifics. I will leave for this lecture. When we spoke about this over the phone, I said that Russian media dead. You can say that's dead man is walking, but basically there is one internet-based TV channel left, TV Rain, one broadcasting left, that's Ahamaskviy, which is still, you know, that's the broadcasting which is owned by the state-affiliated company, and there is no media which are, except for some internet-based media which are owned not by state or state-affiliated companies. There is three, I would say, independent media websites. The New Times, the Bell, which is basically run out of Berkeley, and Medusa, which is run out of Riga, the capital of Latvia, the border state with Russia. So that's basically it. So it's dead. And however, having said that, we should also acknowledge that there is a new sort of media appear on YouTube. YouTube becomes the most important medium in Russia. For instance, there is a famous interior Yuri Dut. He has over 6 million subscribers. That's bigger than the audience of the major news program on Channel One. Alexei Navalny has his show. He has about 3 million subscribers. And several other presenters who used to be TV personalities, they started using their shows on YouTube. Now there is a plan to, there is some research done on the impact of the social networks on the voting behavior. And we know that it's quite different in the West and in my part of the world. Whereas in the democratic countries, Facebook and others, they are more into promoting the populist politicians and populist views. In my part of the world, in authoritarian countries, Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks, they serve as a source of information. In accordance to the latest poll or research conducted by the independent Liwata Center pollster, in the age group 24 to 35, people in this age group, they get the majority of their news from the social networks. As opposed to those who are over 50, who predominantly get their news from the propaganda channels, meaning Russian TV. Just so you understand, there is no one network left which is not under control of the Russian state or state-affiliated companies like gas-prom banks, that's basically intelligence, or like gas-prom or some others. So that's the situation with the Russian media. This is a huge problem for Russian journalists, especially in my age group, I'm 61-year-old, who spend lives in the Russian media organization and now left without jobs. There are hell of a lot of cases when good journalists move to PR companies, to GR, etc., etc. It's also very bad because when time comes and it will come, when we will take over and Russian opposition will run the country, of course it's going to happen, and I hope you believe in this, as much as I do, that we will face the same problem we faced back at the end of Perestroika and when collapse of the USSR happened in 1991. It was that we didn't have real investigative journalists who knew how to do the job. That's a huge problem, full stop. Thank you. Okay, so we'll get into this discussion about what just happened a little bit later. Why don't you pick up on the same thing. Now one of the things about U.S. government policy is this constant effort to inform, to persuade, to have other countries, other populations try to understand what U.S. policy is. When I was deputy director of the Voice of America, we broadcast, we thought like the BBC by shortwave. I don't think anybody has a shortwave set anymore, maybe a few people, but not for a hobby. But we were able to get a signal into Moscow and there were a lot of Russians that I met that listened to both the English language broadcast, which came through without jamming, and the Russian language broadcast, which was jammed periodically. No, no, no, all the time. Well. All the time. It was jammed all the time. I have been listening. I was the listener to BBC and Voice of America, you know. Yeah, but I'll tell you what, but you could get it in certain places in the Soviet Union because when I used to travel, I would take this zenith radio, which was about this big, with a big aerial on it, shortwave, and you could actually listen to it. Now, I'm not sure how many... And you go connected to the satellite, say, put somewhere up there, no? No, no, no, no satellite. It was a signal. You know, signals bounce like this and they end up somewhere. We hope in the right places. So could you talk a little bit about, from your perspective, having served there a couple of times and then having been in the area and worked in the State Department, views you have on the role of the media and what can the... What is it possible for the U.S. government to do to better inform the Russian public if that's possible? That's a broad subject, I know, but please, you're four. Well, I think I can... First of all, thanks for having me. This is really an honor for me to be here, especially with the Evgenia because the last time I served in Moscow, I had a lot of contact with her at New Times and really she... I want to call her a guiding light or maybe a pillar because she always really... Not only was investigative journalist, but not afraid to speak the truth and speak her mind and there aren't many people who are willing to do that anymore, given the kinds of constraints that we see, not just in Russia but around the world. But one thing I can speak to is because I'd like to talk a little bit about the U.S.-Russia relationship, we can get to that, but in terms of media, my last two assignments, one was in Europe working with the U.S. military, but the other was in Central Asia. And one of the things we tried to do in terms of U.S. government was look for alternatives to Russian state television because people at least in Central Asia, most everybody still speaks Russian, and there are no alternatives in Tajik language or Kyrgyz language, maybe a few, but none that have wide distribution, so everyone listens to Russian media. And I can give you a good example when the Russians took Crimea in 2014, I happened to be in the U.S. when I came back, I had some Tajik women who worked for me, and so I said, oh, what do you think about what's happening in Crimea and they're like, oh, the Russians had to go in because the fascists have taken over and it's going to be like World War II again. And so there was this whole message, I said, well, who told you that? And then, well, we heard it on TV. So for most people in, I think, in Central Asia, especially in poorer areas, television is, even for younger people, because in Tajikistan, only maybe less than 20% people have access to the internet, at least in their homes. So through phones, younger people would have. But it was very difficult to find alternatives, and that's one of the things that we worked on at the time. I left in 2015, but trying to support media or stations that perhaps wanted to be an alternative to the Russian media, but just had a lot of difficulty getting airspace, getting airtime. And so that was a difficult thing. And I haven't saw even the extent of the Russian media has gone into other languages. So not only do they give their propaganda, but their point of view. But then they have an RT, and all over Europe, the Russian media is behind a lot of language broadcasting in German, in Romanian, not just countries of former Warsaw Pact, but in Western Europe as well. So it's really hard, I think, even in our own country, to sort out what is real and what isn't real. I mean, of course, this is a debate among the US. It's all fake news, right? Well, but at least we have a choice of looking at the Fox fake or the CNN fake or the NBC fake and determine. So I think that's something that the US really had tried to do. But it's extremely difficult to, because a lot of it is based on money and advertisement, to be able to promote a different voice or a different point of view, especially when the overwhelming control is from Russia and especially in the countries of, I would imagine, in the Caucasus too, but definitely in the countries of Central Asia. And they had also a different narrative on what was happening in Afghanistan. And sometimes I hear things reported even in the local channels, things that maybe I did or the US did, which really weren't true. But it's extremely difficult. And I don't have, you know, we had Voice of America and other things in the past. I do think, and I do think young people, like most of you in the audience, look for ways to get around these or to find real news. Yevgenia mentioned YouTube. I noticed I was just recently, because my organization does a lot with China, that in China, even in Russia, well, even in places like Saudi Arabia, this isn't just unique to Russia, that people have to get a VPN line. You guys know more about this than I do. And you can go around, because even when we were just in China and talking about, well, you don't have any access to Google or, you know, Google-based information. Oh yeah, we do, but, and then, you know, here's how we get around it. So there are ways to get around it. And I would say in China, they're probably more repressive in that there's no, you know, it's very difficult to get real information. And, and even I witnessed it. I was there when there were the protests in Hong Kong and in the hotel, they had the BBC and CNN. But, and the BBC showed it more than CNN, but because I think, because it used to be a British protector. But anytime something came on about Hong Kong, the screen went blank, you know, they jammed it. So I had really never, you know, seen that. And at first I thought, oh, there's something wrong with my TV. I've never called the front desk. But no, then it comes back afterwards. So it's very blatant there. It's like, and you would see that they're going to talk about Hong Kong and then they cut it off. But it's something that I think that is something US government would definitely and does try to be involved in. And sometimes I think where we've gotten cross ways, and I'm not saying this is right, but with countries of former Soviet Union, Russia in particular, is they think that if we want to give a different message, that the message is to foment, you know, overthrow regime change, color revolution, you know, you name it, which in my opinion isn't always true. But I think that goes back to when we can talk more about this, is maybe you mentioned convergence, Mel. I think I served in Moscow after fall of Soviet Union in 1992 to 94. And I just guess I thought because I was, you know, a naive young American diplomat thinking, well, you know, communism is gone, and most people want democracy and want to be part of the liberal, you know, democratic community. And, you know, Russia will find its way that way. And I think there have been mistakes made, you know, on our side. And their side along the way. But, and I did give credit that there wasn't, there was a war in Tajikistan, but, you know, there wasn't a war. It was kind of a peaceful transition that happened given the kinds of things that had to be sorted out. But I think that's a mistake that we, I'm going to take a pragmatic approach that we may have made or made in our dealings with Russia post Soviet Union. And even in dealings with China and other countries who are not of our, you know, democracies, yes, we need to stick together with people who hold our same values. But we can't always expect that everyone will want to embrace what we embrace in the U.S. Let me ask also in the same connection. So for a while during the, after the fall, the Berlin Wall and then the breakup of the Soviet Union, there was a lot of, there was a lot of U.S. government effort on helping NGOs, helping NGOs in Russia in particular, and some of the other countries that were within the so-called Soviet block. That's kind of disappeared. Are there, what do you think about, can NGOs, non-governmental organizations that have some influence over public opinion, can have programs and things, is there a role for them? And I'm not saying sponsored by the United States, but being able to grow on their own. You know, we look at protests now, so couldn't do that in the Soviet period very much. You'd be thrown in jail right away. Some of the demonstrators are treated badly now as well. But there are people out in the streets. Are there, is there a role, do you think, for private organizations to influence policy and move the country toward a more representative system? You have to say more than no, okay? Well, but at least I would just say not foreign, because foreign NGOs are bad. No, not foreign NGOs, how about that? So, and are there, but I guess that would be a question for Eugenia. Are there Russian NGOs that maybe could do some of this work? The reason, you know, I'm smiling is because, you know, since the Soviet Union collapsed, and then, you know, Russia was undergoing this very difficult period of transition, along with other post-communist countries, and then we were trying to set up independent media, and da, da, da, da, da. And each time I was meeting with somebody, you know, from, you know, the State Department or European Union, or you name it. And they always asked me, Eugenia, tell us, how can we help you? It was a regular question. And usually there was, you know, Dima Muratov, you know, they added the issue of Novaya Gazeta and me, and all of us, both of us, we always had one and the same answer. We don't need help from you, because we are dead the minute you start helping us. All we need, we need ads. Guys, you know, we, you know, we cannot take grants from you. We cannot take money from you. But we, you have you ambassador of Sweden, you ambassador of United Kingdom, you ambassador of Germany. And they're all very, very nice people, trust me. You have, you know, in Sweden you have a care. In Germany you have a lot of different than the price. In the United States you have all kind of foundations, institutions, you know, you name it. Give us ads. That's all we need to survive. Because Russian businesses are dead afraid, we're dead afraid to give ads to opposition media, especially when Putin came into power and, you know, checkers took over the country. So, meaning, you know, the KGB, you know, then the successors, they took over the, you know, all branches of the government. And so to give an ad to the new times was to put on your elbow, I am against Putin. So no Russian business in good conscience could do it, could do it legally. So, yes, there were tons, tons of times when they were coming to me, you know, I was meeting with them and they were bringing me the package, $100,000 in one package. And I said, listen, how do you expect me to deal with that? Therefore, we were in bad need of ads, real ads, from the Western run companies. All, you know, I mean, OK, IKEA is present and Moscow probably it's hard for IKEA. But in Sweden there were a couple of other companies like IKEA, or you know, there were, you know, there were different institutions in the United States of America. You look open garden, open financial times, open Le Monde, Le Figaro, Le Republic. And you will see all these ads from different institutions, schools, universities, foundations. That's what we were asking for, not once. And then, you know, another meeting, and another meeting. And again, how can we help you? You know, thank you very much. You know, we ended, you know, at the, you know, once. I got, you know, because, you know, we were totally out of any money it was, and I got a grant for European Endowment for Democracy. Then the next year I was fined at the amount of 22.5 million rubles, the biggest fine in the history of the Russian media. So that's it. So, and that is very interesting because you see where Russians were very naive. We expected when we were asked, how could we help you that people meant that? Now I understand that in fact it means nothing, you know. How you doing? Oh, you know, my mom died. Oh, you know, nice to meet you. See you next time. But it took me a while to realize it's always this chat-chat. What? New Guinea. I'm sorry. No. No, I went to, I would, I would, I'd like you to be. Never, never happened. Just never, never happened. May I suggest that you be a little more passionate about this thing? What do you want me to do? Yeah, right. Well, okay, no, I understand. So what do you mean by ads for one thing? I mean, why would they, why would, in Russian, in Russian, would they be able to take it for one thing? Would they be able to take it? Yes, of course. Of course we could take it. Of course. And without any pressure from the government? No, that was okay, you know. It was legal, it was supposed to be legal. And you know, yes. And the only way for us to operate as Russians to be absolutely transparent and legal. Sure. Because the minute I would allow myself to do something, illegal, I'm dead. Yeah. So you started out by saying the media is dead. Yes. I'm quoting you now. Yes, very good, you know. Can the media rise from the dead? You know, yes. And I want to get your opinion as well on this. No, especially with the changes that were pronounced today. Basically, today happened coup d'etat. So, no. But we know, you know, those of us who, you know, do fear of political regimes, we do know that authoritarian regimes are quite unstable. So they tend to collapse as a result of, you know, split of the elites, elite politics, et cetera. So hopefully, and you know, the mean age of authoritarian regime is about 11 years. So, of course, you understand that. I'm trying to convince myself that, you know, that I have some future ahead of me. So, but of course, you know, then when the regime collapses, we're going to have, you know, media. So you must have some hope. You go back. But that's what, you know, I love it, you know, because it's, you know. Okay, it's a challenge. It's a challenge. And it's just you're running, you're getting high there. Each time you see another surveillance, you feel real good, you know? Now I'm going to ask, I'm going to ask the dispassionate, former American diplomat, the dispassionate to show some passion also about what, so when you were there, you heard what you've gained, you've gained, you were saying what, how did the embassy view its role in trying to promote a more representative government? Why promote representative government? For one thing, representative governments tend to be more cautious in international affairs, particularly if they have some, you know, they have some blocks on their activities so that the executive cannot do everything that executive wants because he has to think about the legislature or the population. So what were we, when you were there right after the collapse, what was our policy centered on? What were we trying to do? And do you think at all that it was effective because I think Yevgenia does not think it was effective? Well, I mean, there are two different times I was there in 1992 to 94, completely different than in 2009. Sure. So in 1992 to 94, I think things were really trying to be sort out and how would, as Yevgenia mentioned, if there's a rebirth, but even then, you know, people were trained as journalists, but perhaps there was a whole new world and I think we were focused a lot on creating opportunities for American business and looking for ways that we could have partnerships because we thought that communism was dead and, you know, that Russia was moving toward being a liberal democracy, just like the United States of America. That's what we thought. I mean, and now in hindsight, you know, it seems very, very naive to have thought that. Do you think that was the basis of the policy because that does sound naive to me if you've studied Russian history? You would know that that's a big job. Well, and I think a lot of people, that's a mistake perhaps we make in the United States of America is we don't look at the history and we don't look at sort of what had happened. And even if you look at, you know, what's happening now in Russia is that, you know, some of what I think is the problem, and Yevgenia mentioned this when we were talking, is that Putin perhaps, or even others in the Russian government feel, that we have, for lack of a more academic word, we've dissed them. We have, you know, not treated him as an equal, as a power, you know, as a world power and they don't like it. So there's some, I think, fear perhaps or insecurity. I mean, to me, people who are doing the kinds of things that happened yesterday, they're insecure and they look for ways to, you know, control and hold power. But I really think, I mean, a lot of, I actually worked for the ambassador. I was the ambassador's staff assistant the first time I was there. So I helped prepare meetings, but a lot of what we did was look for really, it was in, I'm gonna be brutally honest, but kind of in our own interest that we thought, okay, here are opportunities. Here are opportunities for American business. USAID came, you know, Peace Corps came. Not very effectively. You know, and everything was sort of like, okay, well, here is an opportunity that we never, you know, had before. Of course, Peace Corps was different. It wasn't your regular Peace Corps. It was retired business executives come to help, you know, help Russians figure out how to run a business in, you know, a more open way. So I would say, and I think same thing, you know, for the media, looking at, well, how could we help journalists? I mean, even, this was kind of, this was in Tajikistan, but, you know, we were kind of upset because there were journalists in Tajikistan when I was there as the ambassador's was 2014, fast forward. All who had been trained by us in the United States of America were very good journalists, and they were all gonna go start working for like Sputnik or for, you know, the Russian media outlets, and they say, wait, what? You know, why are you doing this? And they said, well, look, there's no, they were offering big salaries to get them to come, and they said, don't worry, we will report responsibly from the Russian media. So, you know, they didn't. But I guess I would say that, you know, a lot of what I remember in 1992 was looking for how we were gonna normalize and what we were gonna do to create opportunities not only for the US, but then also, you know, for Russians, because there were a lot of, at the time to have a bit, start a business, you had to have a joint venture. So for an American company to come in and have a business, they had to find Russian, you know, partners. So, but, you know, later, I would say, you know, when I was there the second time, and, you know, Eugenia had her new times magazine, you know, we talked, and I was probably one of the people who came in and said, well, how can we help you? Because we did, I mean, that was really honest that we wanted to look for ways that we could advocate, but it was a catch 22, because if you're too, if you advocate too much, it could have negative repercussions on her. So how do you, how do you strike that, you know, balance? Well, I think, you know, my 35 years as a diplomat taught me something which is both a real, a criticism of US policy, but also praise. We think that anything can be accomplished. We believe that we have a mission, and no matter what we're seeing these days, we believe that human rights count and that representative governments are the best ones to work with. And sometimes we get a little bit over enthusiastic about this, when don't step back and say, well, let's think about better ways of using leverage, more clever ways of working to try to bring out these impulses that are, I think, present in every country to try to have more control over the lives of the people. It's hard for us, I think my, the lesson is I think it's very hard for us to stand back and be patient. We tend to be a people that think we can do anything. And since we have a representative government here some of which gets elected every two years, every four years or so, we're always looking to do it pretty quickly. So I think it's both praise worthy for our country because we have that image of we wanna get in, we wanna help, we wanna do this. And at the same time, it looks naive, it's really not naive, it's just embedded in us that we can do anything. Anyway, I wanna get to- And we can do this quickly. But excuse me. Go ahead. Just say that, you know, first of all, I don't want to sound unthankful. I think that America is the hell Lord for Russia. For one, you gave us 66 billion dollars, which was extremely important in terms of getting through the hardships of 1990s. Then as talking about journalists, a lot of journalists, a lot of good Russian journalists, they went through all kinds of schools here, night fellowship, Nimman Fellowship, Alfred Friend Fellowship. Yes, I was, you know, it was, you know, the very first time Soviets allowed me to go abroad was I went to work with Chicago on Alfred Friend, the Press Fellowship. So, and it was really very important, a lot of us who got an education here, you know, the fact that I got to Harvard probably was the best thing ever happened to me. And it was amazing, yes, that I spent. Was Michigan's second best, or? Less than, you know, everything, you know. We don't like that, you know. I would agree, because there's another program which is still around, although the Russians have come out of it, it's called the Flex Program, Future Leaders Exchange Program, which is high school. We have the night fellows here too, who are here on campus. I think that was extremely important, and, you know, to open and try to open up and create opportunities for, but I guess that's why I would say, I'm also like you, Mel, that I think, you know, the glasses have full, not half empty, and that having served in Russia, maybe I don't love it as much as you do, but I've been there twice, and I've created, you know, my whole career around getting to know countries of former Soviet Union, and I would like to see a better relationship between our two countries, so that you would be able to somehow that perhaps we can be more effective in helping you to have a more, some kind of opening, you know, to be able to practice your craft. And I have a more, probably, pragmatic approach in that, and I think it's time for the US and Russia to look for ways that we can, you know, try to open up our dialogue. Look, you know, Russia's probably the only country in the world who could destroy the United States of America in a matter of 30 minutes or so because of the nuclear weapons. So at a minimum, we need to have dialogue on issues of mutual concern, and then to bring, we were talking about this the other day, but to take the treaties that exist, I was there in 2010, and you know, that was a bane of my existence is helping the negotiators on the START treaty. I would like to see that continue, but then expand. That's an area where US and Russia could agree, and then maybe look to include China or look to include new and more sophisticated weapons that we haven't had before. And I also think this isn't a popular point of view, but it's one that's shared by Henry Kissinger, if you read about what he's written, and another person, Tom Graham, who'd served in Moscow, who's not Kissinger Associates, but to look at maybe perhaps we should step back, and if we look at what's going on in Ukraine, can we step back and say, we're going to stop thinking about NATO expansion. Doesn't mean we're not going to support Ukraine or support Georgia or other friends, but look at ways that we could maybe then begin a dialogue to, and cut a deal, make some arrangements. You know, we'll do this if you get out of the Donbass or we, but if we don't talk, we really won't get anywhere, and I think we have to at least make the Russian government and Putin feel that we consider him to be a world player and that we're willing to make Russia part of a solution, not maybe the part of the problem. Let's now get to some of the questions from the audience. We have, introduce yourselves, please, and I guess you were in, were you introduced by John? I forgot. Okay, well anyway, introduce yourselves and then we have questions that have come from the audience and you've been picking out and picking through them, so please go ahead, ask. Hi, I'm Nathan Ojo. I'm an MPP also pursuing a graduate certificate in Russian. I think you need to speak up. Yeah. My name's Nathan Ojo. There we go. I'm an MPP also pursuing a graduate certificate in Russian, Eurasian, and East European studies. The first question I have for the panelists is how much do journalists on state-run channels buy into the news they provide or do they understand that they are effectively government mouthpieces? I'm not sure. I understood you. Can you repeat it, please? Say it again. How much do journalists on state-run channels like Russia today buy into the news that they provide? Do they understand that they are effectively government mouthpieces? So the question is they... Of course they... I don't know what the framework is. Do they really believe that? That's why they paid a very good bar. Exactly. Well, that's what I said, that the Tajik journalists who went to work for the Russian news media outlets, they did it mainly because they needed the salary, they needed the money, they were well-paid and whether they believe everything or not, I'm not sure. Yeah, but you have lots of friends among journalists, I'm sure. Without naming names or anything, what do you think these journalists feel like when they are basically given a kind of script? That they have to provide for their families, that they have to pay mortgage. Exactly the same what people think in other countries and in yours as well, trust me. Exactly. So... That they have to raise their kids, what they think. It's very cognitive. Thanks God I'm speaking English, I can write in English, I can make money on a side, but you know, and they have a grown up child, but for many, for many colleagues of mine, it's a huge problem how to provide for their children. That's exactly what happened in Tajikistan. That was the only way to really, they made no money in the outlets that they could be real journalists and they got lured away by larger salaries and then they had to report what they had to report. The salaries are huge, you know, the people are making $50,000 per month, dollars. Journalists? Yes, yes. I wanna go there. Yes. So it's not easy, you know, for some people, it's not that easy to make a choice. Okay. Yeah, because even the salaries for the Tajik journalists that I'm talking about, 10 times what they have been making. That's hard to pass up. Right. Good evening, my name is Gordon Rooney and I'm a master of public affairs candidate here at the Ford School and it's a great opportunity to ask you these questions from the audience. So here's a question. What barriers, if any, do foreign journalists face in Russia? Foreign journalists, in terms of reporting. Let me make, do a preface. When I was in Moscow, this is in the mid-70s, we had a group of the best journalists they no longer send journalists with newspapers anymore. They can't, I guess they can't afford to do it. But I mean, we had people from the New York Times and from Time Magazine and from the Washington Post and they were strictures, they had to be careful, but they were able to talk to people even during that particular period of time which is described as the taunt. So the KGB was a little more careful in the way they dealt with journalists who wanted to talk to people who were not necessarily just those that reported, that were part of the regime. And it wasn't really an amazing period, if you read the stories back into the 70s, of what I would call free journalism by foreign journalists. I don't see as much reporting out of Russia now. Is that because there's interest? There was a very good book written by Hendrick Smith. Yeah, he was one of those who was there. Wonderful book, he was a Times reporter. Right. But he was one of a very few journalists who was able to get the inside information. For foreign journalists, it's pretty hard to get information from the decision-making sphere. That's what you want to know, what's going on in Kremlin, when Putin is going to step down or not, why he fired Medvedev, why Mishustin has been appointed as the new prime minister, you know, what kind of, that's very difficult, very difficult to get this information. However, as opposed to what was going on in the 1970s that I don't remember that well. You're too young. And of course, you know, I had to say this. I feel like your father now. You are the more, actually the more. So anyway, people are no longer afraid to talk to foreigners. For instance, in the Soviet Union, the minute you spoke to a foreigner, you were summoned up to the KGB and they created all kinds of problems. So in that respect, it's easy for foreign journalists. It's easy for them to travel, they can travel around. Unfortunately, once again, unlike it was in the Soviet times, many foreign journalists don't speak Russian and they have to. There is no way you can work in Russia without speaking. Otherwise you will have a translator. Reporting what you said. No, of course, all of them reporting, but you know. Or not translating what was actually said. That also, yes. Exactly, exactly. We find that in China. David Drebnik spoke beautiful Russian. Smith spoke beautiful Russian, you know. No, no, a lot of good reporters now, you know, some of those who worked in the 90s, they also spoke very good Russian. It was important, it's still important. Yep, and our media, unfortunately, just aren't, I don't know, I wouldn't say paying attention. I think it's part of the economic problem, particularly with newspapers, even when they're online, of having foreign correspondents. Foreign correspondents, which in the 70s and before were all over the world, reporting from all over the world firsthand, talking to people, doesn't happen as much anymore. But listen, I think that people are also tired of Russia because there were a lot of expectations. Tired, okay. There were a lot of expectations and basically we are losers, you know. We had an option, we have a possibility to break through and we totally lost. And we lost not because there was lack of money or that or that, we lost because that elites turned out to be extremely greedy because corruption is just beyond good and evil because instead of fighting for values, people were fighting for how to steal another company from the States. So that's the problem. It's, I think that for journalists, it's much more interesting should be in Ukraine. That's where a real battle now, you know. That's what really, it's going to be really interesting. So, China is also very interesting. Hong Kong, what's going on? Taiwan, which just, you know, reelected the incumbent and, you know, and fought back, you know, Chinese. So, Russia, I think it's a little bit less interesting. And that's good from the Russian standpoint. I don't know whether it's good or not. I'm talking about the government standpoint. Not so much of a spotlight on what's going on. Or is that not right? I have no idea, you know, I cannot read their minds. Yeah, well, you sort of can, because they've closed down a number of the outlets, some of them that you work for, or restricted them, wanting to keep the monopoly on what news people are receiving, wanting to gauge the news to their own interests? You know, gauge the people that tend to be control freaks. And so, people who are under control, they are control freaks. That's why, you know, they want to control everything. Like, you know, today in this, you know, Putin's state of the union, he announced that they're going to abandon, you know, the self-governance on the municipal level. It's a disaster. You know, nobody paid attention to that, but that's a real disaster because at least there was possible to do something on the very, on the ground, down to the earth. And why they're going to do this? Precisely because they control freaks. They do know that, you know, that will preclude from getting whatever, you know, whatever little information was available from the ground. They won't be able, they will be, you know, information asymmetry all around. It's a known problem in political science, especially in a certain generation. But they do this. Why? Because they control freaks. Because they want to control everything. They want to know everything. They think that if they were going to have their people and their agents and their formers everywhere, they're going to prevent, you know, coup d'etat or collapse of Russia or whatever, you know, United States coming down to Moscow and grabbing, no, you know, Madeline Bright going to Siberia and grabbing Russian oil. Whatever, you know, this, you know, all this conspiratorial mindset, it's all there. Yeah. Next question. So sticking with this issue of control to an extent, what role do you see alternative mediums like graffiti, art, poetry, and the demonstrations conducted by groups like Pussy Riot play in providing access to narratives which might be censored in traditional media sources within Russia? You asking me? Well, I mean, I'm just trying to, you know, think about that. I mean, it's people again, taking a stand on, and different when you talk about Pussy Riot and forgotten about them for a while. But the role, I think that the space to be able to do that, and Yevgeniya's outlined that very well, has narrowed, you know, so that people don't feel comfortable being able to and express an opposing opinion, unless they wanna go to jail or, you know, be run out of business. So I'd say there's not much space for even poetry or writing or other forms of expression. I don't know, I may be wrong, but. Well, poetry is in the Russian soul, I think poetry. Well, I don't know, frankly, I don't know. But people aren't writing, but when I say that writing something that might express a differing point of view and do it in a, you know, as writing a book or writing something, not that they don't appreciate poetry. During the worst periods of Soviet repression, there were still people who did poetry, probably thinking they're not gonna understand what I'm really saying anyway. But there were poets that challenged in a certain way, you know, and then they had to write other things for the regime. If you think of Yevgeniya, for example, but do you think people are doing that now? Well, I don't know, that's a question. Yeah, there are poets, and there are people who write novels, people who write poetry, so and so far, the regime was pretty much, you know, unconcerned about. Is that because it doesn't go out to the public as much? It doesn't get into the public realm? I think they pretty much realize that, you know, it doesn't have that, you know, unlike TV, unlike electronic media, this has very little distribution, that's therefore little impact on a rank and file. So they're just less concerned about that. But that's kind of interesting. After the general regimes, they tend not to be that concerned about what people think. That's the difference with the Italian regime. I think, well, again, if I do a lot of comparison of the 70s period when I was there, and I remember that there was always, you know, there's this, there was in this sort of word-to-mouth area, new things that were coming out that you wouldn't see advertised anymore. A word-of-mouth, you would have this new play at the Taganka or someplace else that had a kind of meaning that might reflect criticism of the regime, but it had to be done in a very sophisticated way. Music as well. Yes, but there was a special technique. Yeah. There was a special technique which was called esopic language between the lines. Right, right, yeah. There is censorship back in the theater, unfortunately, yes. So we will see how this will go with respect to novels. Yeah, okay. Okay, let's go to the next question. Because younger and older generations in Russia get their news from different sources, how does it affect or change the generational divide or generational gap? I mean, I would say it's the same in the US. I mean, people over 50 watch, you know, the network or CNN or Fox News and people who are younger of your generation, you know, some people get it from social media, some people get it from, but they don't get it in the same way people from my generation get the news. So, and it appears to me at least, I haven't lived in Russia since 2010, but I can tell you that's the way things also were in countries of former Soviet Union in Central Asia is that the older people would watch the news and they had no alternative. It was only the Russian language networks and there were some people who could speak English, but even CNN or BBC were harder to come by. So, I guess it depends on, it's an issue for even our country. What do you see on the news if you're my age and I'm watching the NBC Nightly News as opposed to what you see if you never watch the television, but you just get your news from reading online or from other sources? Yeah, and the one thing that I guess I would, yeah, Comedy Central, people used to get their news from, especially when John Stuart was on there. But I guess the thing that bothers me and this is a debate even our own country is that, and maybe it was propaganda when I was growing up, but you sort of felt like you could rely on if you read something in the newspaper that it was probably true. Maybe it had a slant to it, but now you really don't know and especially with influence of other, someone can put news on Facebook or on the internet and you really don't know if it's, you don't know, it's very hard to sort out what's fact from fiction. And so I think that makes for a bigger divide. What do you think about this generational divide? I mean, are the young Russians now as they grow, as they get older, will they carry those views or does the system that exists kind of leaven it down as they get older? Views about, you know, about life in general, about the government, about freedom, about music. You said YouTube, for example, that kind of thing. This is very interesting. It's a good question because we see during the last summer, we saw unrest in Moscow when a lot of young people went out on the street and about 1500 were arrested and many went through jails and some are serving time now. So we see that these generation of those who were born after the Soviet Union collapse, they are much less prone to be afraid. You know, they're much more fearless. Didn't experience the old system. Exactly. And these generation of those who are now 22, 23, 24, they're more interested in politics. They're sick and tired of Putin because their entire life, they know just one president. And when you tell them that in the United States there was already four or five presidents and we still have, you know, Putin came under Clinton, right? Clinton Bush, second Bush, Obama, Trump. So four, right? Four, right. So then, you know, they definitely want to see new faces. They want to see to, many of them, they're very naive, but they are eager to take part in politics and to have a say in the decisions that are made. So is that, I remember you said earlier, but it will come. In other words, the change will come. Oh absolutely. Are you betting that they will hold these attitudes to the point when they get to be able to influence politics or become elected, let's say, in whatever city council manner or go do something else? No, I think they'll come pretty soon. I think that, you know, the so-called stability in Russia is coming to an end. It's already, you know, the system is extremely shaky and it's going to be even more shaky because of the changes that Putin just announced. And there will be, you know, there will be more popular mobilization. Also, it's extremely hard now for elites. No one knows who's going to end up in jail, you know, whether you're a governor and minister or an oligarch. So yes, there will be popular mobilization and yes, young people are going to change the system, no question asked. That's good. Oh, that's positive. That's good. Absolutely positive. Yeah, very good. No, but that's an interesting thing because, you know, sometimes systems that are oligarchic or autocratic pull those people that have enthusiasm for having more control into that system itself and making it impossible for them to enjoy, let's say, a good life with lots of bells and whistles on it, unless they join the system. It'll be interesting to see what the response to this generation that you described coming up will be from those people who depend on keeping things the same because that's where their money is. So I think that's an interesting question we don't know at this point. Do you think the demonstrations that have taken place most recently have affected the way that the government itself, Putin and his colleagues operate? Do they have to worry about this? Yes, they do worry about that. Yes, they're concerned because Putin's ratings returned back to pre-Crimea levels and in 2013, 2012, 2013, the trend was his rating was down the hill. So they're very concerned about that. Russian real incomes are going down the third year on the road. So yes, yes, they are concerned, they should be concerned. Another question from the audience, please. Over the past 20 years, the LGBTQ plus community in the United States has gained a much greater deal of acceptance. Do either of you anticipate any such changes occurring in Russia as this new generation of Russian starts to play an increasingly large role in politics? LGBTQ. I mean, I can give you some anecdotal evidence because I have some gay friends who are Russian and who really took an opportunity and again, this was in the 90s and switched their careers and started a business and they actually imported things from, I won't give you a lot of details, you won't know who they are, but and they are gay. And everything went along fine. And all of a sudden we talk about KGB, KGB came and turned out that the guy who's driver, he was with KGB and stole their business. And then he had to leave the country. One of the others who had gotten out of it has moved on to an outside of Moscow but is very worried about revealing, you know, he stays very under the radar that he's gay. So if I look at my experience just with my friends that there's still a lot of discrimination. And of course this guy, he lost all his money and then he's finally now, he got political asylum in Germany but they just came in, took all his money and it was kind of like, well, you know, it was almost like you're gay and you deserve to have this taken away from you. That was the feeling. So that's a personal experience that I've had. I don't know if that's widespread, if things have changed. But even in these people I met in the 90s and have continued to be friends with them and it doesn't appear, some of them, another one left and has left the country because they just didn't feel comfortable living in the US. And one time when I was, probably shouldn't tell you, but I was working for Condoleezza Rice and so I had, you know, I was there in Moscow and so I invited all my gay friends to come and have brunch with me at one of the Marriott hotels. And you should have seen like the looks at people because here's Susan Elliott, you know, with these like 12 gay men. It was great for me, but you know, again, it was something that I think was really unusual for people to kind of express themselves in public. You know, it is very interesting question because in the Soviet times there was special, there was an article in the Russian, in the Soviet criminal court that persecuted gays. These was changed, you know, I believe in 1993 or 1994. So recently, you know, New Times was the first magazine to publish, you know, the sort of gay cover. You know, we had gays on the cover and there was a huge scandal, of course, but still, you know, people accepted that. I had a reporter who married to his gay husband. They married in France, in Nice, but they lived in Moscow. And he was writing, and we publish a lot of stories from inside the gay community. The situation is not exactly black and white. On the one hand, in big cities, people are pretty much acceptable, you know. It becomes, it becomes, you know, I mean, people are getting accustomed to see same-sex couples. A lot of lesbian couples, they have children, and they're pretty open about that. However, there are parts of Russia, like Chechnya, like Dagestan, which are totally intolerable, they totally unacceptable. For them, you know, any gay relationship, totally unacceptable. And people are died there, people are beaten there, people experience a lot of hardships. But Russians are getting much more okay with that, you know. It's no longer something, oh, you know, it's impossible. I know they're okay with that. I would say Russia's more, you know. In terms of the media as well, that is the outside media, like YouTube, and things which show that style of life in the West in particular, that may be affecting attitudes by the big cities at least, do you think? I don't know, you know, it depends upon how, you know, people should read English and understand English. So, no, I think that's just, you know, people are becoming, you know, there's, of course, you know, there's cinema and, you know, and there are a lot of open gaze and people look at them and they see, you know, that it's okay. Yeah, I would agree in Russia, it's much more open, even though my friends had trouble, then, well. Chechnya, Dagestan, is that a religious, is that part of the, the religious, Muslim, yeah. In Tajikistan, we reached out to the LGBT community. I've invited them to my home and it had to be very, they wanted everything under the radar very discreet because there was a lot of persecution. No one would admit they were gay in Tajikistan. I can't see the clock back. But for instance, in Georgia, pretty open, in Ukraine, pretty open. Yeah. So, yeah. Okay, another question, please. Okay, here's another question from the audience. I read earlier today that Prime Minister Medvedev and his cabinet resigned. Did he resign? Was he fired? Is there any realistic possibility Mr. Putin will not be able to stay in power indefinitely? Well, indefinitely means that he would never die, so I guess that answers that one. But when? In fact, today happened much more important event than just resignation of unimportant personality by the name of Medvedev. Today, Putin basically dissolved the Russian constitution. He dissolved, you know, Russian constitution was pretty much dead before, but there were two chapters, chapter one and chapter two, with respect to the basics of the state and society and human rights, which no president could touch. Today, Putin announced that there will be amendments to this very basics of the Russian constitution. And Russian constitution is a direct law. It has priority over all other laws in the land. Today, Putin basically announced the Russian constitution null and void. He, you know, there is, he announced that there will be, so there will changes to the institution of the presidency, to the institution of the government, to the institution of the low chamber of the Russian parliament, which is Duma, and to the upper chamber, the federation council. There will be changes with respect to several most important laws, like law on the presidency, law on the government, law on the distribution of powers between different so-called law enforcement agencies, and et cetera. He, of course, Medvedev was fired, obviously, but he doesn't have a say, so who cares? They, Putin created a new position in the security council, so Medvedev now, you know, he's deputy in the security council. Yes, Putin today, he made it clear to the entire world, and that was the main message, that he's going to stay indefinitely. He doesn't want to be lame duck anymore. Therefore, everyone is going to happen well before 2024. I think that all the major changes will happen in the next year, because Russian law, if Putin decides to say in the illegal field, and that's what he chose before, Russian law requires to conduct whatever changes to constitution a year prior to the parliamentary elections, in September 2021, so all changes will be made in 2020. And will this be subject to referendum, because there was some reference to this? In other words, voting, popular voting. Exactly, for you. Chapter one and chapter two can be changed only. Right, by referendum. By referendum. But they already said, you know, it's very unclear, they already said that no, there probably won't be referendum, but there will be all people voting, so it's not clear what they're going to do. Well, it probably will be one of those up or down kind of things, rather than an alternative for one thing, right? In other words, the choice will not be there. It may be, well, I don't know. I'm not sure how that works. There's something that is called constitutional assembly that can also, it's not clear, but they already, he proposed the former tax minister as the new prime minister, he's totally apolitical, so it means that, I think my hypothesis is that basically Putin and his pals, they are reinventing the Soviet system of governance, because that's all they know, basically. And in this system of governance, Putin becomes unelected leader who is above any law, any limits, any elections. He's like general secretary of the Communist Party, head of the Politburo. So he also said that the Federation Council is going to approve Silviki, you know, Minister of Defense, FSB. The power elite. FSB is that, you know. So they'll control the whole government, yeah. Yes, so it is to say that Federation Council will be something, and it's a non-elected body, which is appointed by the regional governance, to say that it will be something like Central Committee of the Communist Party, whereas it's not clear whether Putin will become the head of some strange body, but the name goes Soviet State Council, or he will stay as the head of the Security Council. In this case, they're going to choose the model that Kazakhstan just chose with respect to Nazarbayev. Have you got in any sense for the public, I know it's early, but public reaction are people upset by this? Who can support public privilege? Well, I mean, we do. Well, if the, yeah. And maybe Putin doesn't put it out. No, it will be interesting to see when this gets absorbed, whether it stimulates more demonstrations in the streets. What would be public outrage? Will it be understood for one thing? Yes, because, you know, along with that, he gave some perks that are, there will be some additional money to those who have first child and the second child. That's extremely important for the poorest part of the country. This is Mats Objetskivus Ayuzov, the honored mother who had nine children. I know, but in this case, you know, we have the problem of depopulation. It's one of the biggest problems, Russia depopulation of the country. So, she provided... Let's, for the audience, tell me, what's the population of Russia is now one hundred and fifties? No, no, no. About 50 million? One hundred and forty-four million. And plus, they say one hundred and forty-seven because they add population of Crimea. And it's going down. It's... The amount of those born is less, the amount of those... So, instead of looking like a pyramid, it's more like this, which in a lot of countries, even in Asia and Japan, has the same thing. So, this has tremendous implications. If you think of the economy, workers, how do you continue to run things when the population is going down and you don't have enough of a workforce, especially a trained workforce? But that's why, you know, we invite... Tadjiks. Tadjiks, Kyrgyz, you know, people from the... There are 1.2 million Tadjiks work in Russia. Yeah, essentially at lower levels. At lower levels so that the Russian population can consume the higher levels, presumably. Is that right? More or less? Yeah. Okay. More than less? But, you know, I think that, you know, that in a way, Kremlin should be happy about that because, you know, the main source of rent is, you know, gas and oil pipeline. So the amount of those who get rents out of and gets whatever perks out of the gas and oil pipeline, getting lower. So those are the top, they're getting more. I think we're near the end. Well, last word goes to John Chorchari. But I do want to thank you for this, I hope, stimulating conversation. Certainly it was for me. Well, I want to thank you because I haven't seen you getting for 10 years. Okay. You know, when John said to me, oh, would you like to be on a panel with us? And I haven't seen you for about 30, probably. Yeah, the other thing I can say, I'll tell everybody so I can embarrass Mel, but, you know, he, when I was at a low level, he was ambassador to Brazil and we went there on a visit. I was one of the advanced officers for Warren Christopher and he treated us so well and, you know, briefed us and invited, he and his wife invited us into their home, had us for dinner. And so that's something that I'd never forget. So when I heard Mel was here, Yevgeny was here, I said, oh, I need to come. So anyway, thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you.