>> My name is Melvyn Levitsky, I am a
former American diplomat and now a Professor

of International Policy and
Practice at the Gerald Ford School.

I'm happy to welcome all of
you, all of you here today.

May I begin by thanking the sponsors of
this event, the Gerald R. Ford School

of Public Policy and the International Policy
Center, the Weiser Center for Europe and Eurasia

as well as the Weiser Center
for Emerging Democracies,

those are the sponsors of the event.

May I also thank personally Ron Weiser,
who is very active on the campus here

and all around town for coming
today, Ambassador--

former Ambassador of Slovakia and integral
member of our university community here.

Well,

[ Pause ]

I'm an old cold warrior.

I came in the Foreign Service in the--

in the late 60's and then I always
wanted to be a Kremlinologist.

That's what our Sovietologists will call it.

In fact a lot of times I
still say US-Soviet Relations.

I can't get it out of my mind.

But the-- but Russia and the Soviet Union
and Russia have had a certain centrality

in American Foreign Policy for many, many
years and especially during the Cold War

when it seemed that our whole foreign policy
was directed toward and around the relationship

with the Soviet Union at the time
not surprising given the fact

that there were 2 superpowers both of whom
had the capacity to destroy the other,

and we had concepts such as mutually assured
destruction, missile gaps and the like.

And every administration has tried to have
a kind of angle on this whether it was a,

whether it was through terminology
or through description of policy.

So if we think of the Containment Policy
started during the Truman Administration

which had a kind of thread through our Cold
War policy of during the 45 or so years

of the Cold War, roll back that
is roll back the communist tied

if we remember this during the Eisenhower
Administration with John Foster Dulles.

The Kennedy Administration which had
trouble dealing with the Soviet Union

with Nikita Khrushchev, and
experienced the Cuba Missile Crisis

which thought I think the Kennedy
Administration had learned its lesson

from other more disastrous events that it
had, and then detente with Richard Nixon

or relaxation, relaxation of
tensions and attempt to negotiate

with our Cold War adversary, and a full round
of negotiations particularly on arms control

but also in the culture on economic side
through the conference and security and comforts

and security and cooperation in Europe.

And then other administrations, the
Reagan Administration with the evil empire

and then trust but verify--
an attempt to deal with the--

at that time, President Gorbachev and
the emerging new open Soviet Democracy

of Soviet system of perestroika
and glasnost, openness.

Clinton Administration had a series at the--
of meetings at the Vice Presidential level

and attempt to find a productive
relationship after the Cold War.

The second Bush Administration that who
was leader saw, looked into the eyes

of the Soviet leader and saw his soul which
Margaret Thatcher had done a bit before

because she said Gorbachev looks like
a man that we could actually deal with.

All this by way of saying that this
has been a central relationship

and an important relationship for the United
States and now the new administration as part

of what I think is an overall policy of
engagement has called its policy reset,

resetting our relations with the-- with Russia,

say I was going to say Soviet
Union-- with Russia.

Well, who could better explain and talk about
this policy than our Ambassador to Russia,

our current Ambassador to Russia.

John Beyrle, who is a career Foreign
Service Officer, fluent in Russian

and several other languages I might add.

We'll get to that later.

Let me just mention a few items from
his-- from his very distinguished career.

This is a man who has had a focus
on Russia and East European,

Central European relations during his career
in the Foreign Service in the State Department

and at the National Security Council.

He has had 3 tours in the Soviet Union, in
the Soviet Union first but then in Russia,

first in the political section, second
as the Deputy Chief of Mission--

that's the number 2 person in the embassy.

After that he served as Ambassador to Bulgaria.

His other overseas assignments were
Counselor for Political and Economic Affairs

at the U.S. Embassy in the Czech Republic,

member of the Conventional
Forces Negotiations in Vienna.

And in his Washington assignments Acting
Special Adviser to the Secretary of State

for the New Independent States which
was early on after the breakup of the,

of the old Soviet Union, and Director for
Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian Affairs

at the National Security Council.

He is the recipient of numerous awards.

He also is a Michigander
from Muskegon, Michigan.

He got his BA not here, at Grand Valley State

but studied Slavic linguistics here before smart
people attracted him to other kinds of jobs

and eventually into the--
into the Foreign Service.

So, and but he I know from this one as
a personal item that he is a big fan

of the University of Michigan
not only of the Sports Program

but of the university as
a, university as a whole.

Well, and let me add a personal note here.

I was Ambassador to Bulgaria in the mid
80's and I heard about this young officer

that was working for the Ambassador
in Russia, I got a little note saying,

"This might be a good person to come bring
to Soviet," that time our relationship

with Bulgaria was probably
as bad as it ever could be.

It was during the Reagan Administration
and we saw the Bulgarians as sort

of the toadies of the-- of Moscow.

And so, I said "Fine.

Let's have this officer come.

He can work in the political
section," we had lot of issues

at that time and that was John Beyrle.

He came after studying Bulgarian and I have

to say retained Bulgarian
which I certainly didn't do.

I gave up after couple of years saying I'm never
going to come back to Bulgaria but I might go

to Russia so I spoke Russian with the,
with the Bulgarian officials at that time.

And then, when I was asked to go back to the
State Department to work for Secretary Shultz

as Executive Secretary of
the Department I said, "John,

why don't you come back" and he did again.

Well, since that time John has made
his way brilliantly up the ladder

to his current position which is one of,

if not the most important diplomatic
post, post we have in the world.

May I also add that John's wife Jocelyn,

is a very outstanding State Department Foreign
Service Officer formerly when they were

in Bulgaria, worked as a Public
Diplomacy Officer in Bulgaria, brilliant--

a brilliant lady who because of ethics rules
and the like had to go on a leave of absence.

I guess John will follow her when
she becomes an ambassador later on,

become the steward of the residence.

>> She's biding her time.

>> She's biding her time.

In any case, thank you all for coming and please
join me in a University of Michigan welcome

for Ambassador of Russia John Beyrle.

[ Applause ]

>> Thank you Mel, thanks very much
for that, for that warm introduction.

I am really delighted to be back home
in Michigan and back in Ann Arbor.

I want to join Mel in thanking the
Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy

and the International Policy Center.

I want to thank the Weiser Center
for Emerging Democracy's Ambassador,

good to see you here today.

I'm also very happy to be
able to welcome my brother

and sister today, Joe Beyrle and Julie Sugars.

And so I'm flattered that after 50
years of having to listen to me talk,

sometimes against their will at places like
the dinner table where it was either go hungry

or listen to John that they actually
volunteered to come all this way here today.

Some good friends of ours, Scoop [phonetics]
and Danny Allens [phonetic] are here.

But most of all I want to thank
Mel who really was something,

not something, who was a mentor to me.

Woody Allen said famously that 80 percent of
success in life is just showing up and I'm sort

of living embodiment of that and I'm
just glad for Mel because when I did show

up there always seemed to
be a seat reserved for me.

And I really learned a lot about
the art of being an ambassador

from close observation of Mel and Joan.

Joan where are you?

Where's Joan?

Hey Joan. His wife Joan, who were really two
of the most gracious diplomats as Mel said,

a very tough time in US Bulgarian relations.

I spent a couple of formative years here in
the 1970s as Mel mentioned studying Russian,

studying Russian literature
with Carl and Ellendea Proffer,

those of you who remember those Halcyon days
of artist publishers and Slavic linguistics not

to far from here and what
we used to call the MLB.

I don't know if it's called the MLB anymore.

I see a few nods out there.

And it really was this time, those semesters
I spent at the University of Michigan

which really brought me to
the conclusion that a career

in what we then called Soviet studies was
probably something I needed to focus on.

And a lot obviously has changed since then,
the country that I first visited in 1976

as a student no longer exists, the Soviet Union.

But as Mel mentioned and he's absolutely right,
the relationship between the United States and--

the Soviet Union, the United State and
Russia is still really of central importance

to our interest, to our national interest as
country and I would argue to peace and stability

in the world as a whole as well and I want
to talk a little bit about that today.

2009, the year we've just rang out was really
a year of remarkable change and renewal

in the US-Russia relationship and we used
a single word to describe that change

and renewal and that word is reset.

And so, what I want to try to do today is
reflect a little bit on what the reset entailed

and what the Obama Administration still
sees as the areas in which should needs,

we need to concentrate our efforts as a
nation vis-a-vis our relationship with Russia.

The past year, 2009 that was my first full year
as Ambassador in Russia was quite a contrast

to the atmosphere that I experienced when
I arrived in August of 2008 as Ambassador.

At that point, the level of mistrust, the
level of suspicion and misapprehension was

between the United States and Russia was as
high as I had ever felt it since the worst days

of the Cold War, and I have been rowing this
hoe as Mel mention for many, many years.

Below the levels of President Bush and Putin who
did have a fairly good personal relationship,

there was almost no dialog or
discussion between our governments.

And the dialog and discussion that existed was
marked by a tone that was often belligerent

by a dangerous level of misunderstanding
on both sides

of each other's motivations
or even point of view.

But in my experience and the experience of
those who study Russian and Soviet Union

for a living bare this out, is that
this is a very cyclical relationship.

There are times when the disagreements
between Russia and United States are dominant,

and there are other periods in which the
points of agreement or are more powerful

than the things we're arguing over, and Mel
mentioned some of those a bit earlier on.

So, even after Russian troops went into Georgia
in August 2008, even as the relationship

at that point deteriorated to what I
think was really one most dangerous levels

that we encountered since the end of the
Cold War, it was still pretty clear to me

that we would need to come out at
some point and repair the damage,

and start to restore what had been
broken in US-Russia relationship

because this relationship is really too
important globally for us to allow it

to have a luxury of letting it lie
around in disrepair for very long.

And that true historically if you
go back through the years and look

at the US-Russia relationship, we had
to do the very same thing in the 1960's

after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that
resulted in a period in which we began to come

up with the first arms control agreements,
the first recognition by Russia,

Soviet Union at that time in the United
States that we had a larger responsibility

to manage this relationship so the Soviet
never again we would bring the world

to the precipice of nuclear war.

Even in the midst of the-- all the
idealogical antagonism of the Cold War,

we had as Mel mentioned and many of
us remember the period of [inaudible]

that really made possible the real arms
control agreements: SALT I, SALT II,

some of which we are continuing the legacy
which we are continuing to work on today.

And obviously at around the middle of the 1980s,

we had a period when much suddenly became
possibly including the Soviet Union

and the United States due to
the policies of perestroika

and glasnost espoused by Mikhail Gorbachev.

So the efforts of the Obama Administration

to reset the US-Russia relationship I
would argue has a fairly well-defined

historical precedent.

Now, I'll talk maybe in more detail about
the Status and the substance of the reset

in just a moment but first I just want to try
to set some of the context for really why any

of this matters at the end of
the day because we don't seek

to improve the US-Russia relationship just
to make us feel good or for it's own sake.

A productive constructive relationship between
the United States and Russia is essential

for the national interests of the United States.

There was a bipartisan commission last
year headed by former Senators Gary Hart

and Chuck Hagel which concluded that there were
few nations in the world that could make more

of a difference to the American
national success than Russia,

and I would point to just 3
reasons quickly why, why that is so.

The first relates to our
strategic survival interest

and this is a shared existential
interest we have with Russia.

We remain the world's only nuclear superpowers.

Together, we possess 95 percent of the
nuclear warheads on the face of the earth.

And for that reason alone, Russia cannot
be ignored, Russia cannot be marginalized,

and the Russian support is essential to us
especially at a time when the proliferation

of nuclear weapons and nuclear
materials is a growing global danger.

So that's the first existential
reason that all of this matters.

Secondly, basic geopolitics.

Russia is a major international power
bordering on 14 different countries,

bordering regions like Asia, Europe, and the
Middle East whose futures are vitally connected

with the interest of the United States.

Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security
Council and thus, it has an influential voice

in the most crucial diplomatic decisions that
are taken in the world from Iran to North Korea,

to more modern threats like the efforts
to fight piracy on the high seas,

to extremism in places like
Afghanistan and Pakistan.

If there is an executive committee or steering
group out there making the major decisions

in the world, Russia is definitely
a member of that group.

So that's the second reason basic geopolitics.

The third and increasingly
important is economics.

Our country's prosperity's
are increasingly intertwined.

Russia is the largest producer
of gas and oil in the world now.

They outstripped Saudi Arabia on a day
to day basis in production of petroleum.

And America as we know is the largest
consumer of energy on the planet.

Forty percent of the natural gas that's consumed
in Western Europe comes directly from Russia.

So Russia has and will continue to have a
very large role in how energy is produced

and how it's distributed in the world.

And the geopolitics of the
energy equation will be pivotal

to determining how stable the world
we live in, in the 21st Century.

Russians are also doing business in
the United States and vice versa.

This past summer, I helped the Chairman

of PepsiCo open the largest soft drink bottling
plant in Europe just outside of Moscow.

A year before in 2008 even amidst all
of the friction of the Georgia invasion

and its aftermath, I joined President Medvedev

and helped him open a General
Motors plant in St. Petersburg.

Before the crisis hit, Russia had
become the largest car buying country

in Europe, larger than Germany.

And when the crisis ends, it will be again.

Even if you factor in the last 14 years of
economic downturn which hit Russia quite hard

and I'll talk about that later,

American companies are still enjoying
an incredible 10 year round of growth

and prosperity, taking advantage of the
business opportunities that exist now in Russia,

taking advantage of the growth of what
looks like a middle class for the first time

in Russia, Russia historically, and we had
a bourgeoisie, you have the beginnings now

of a middle class with all of
the social implications for that.

I don't know if American companies
are taking advantage of that.

And finally, Russian investment
in the United States especially

that that started before the crisis
has created or saved thousands of jobs,

especially in the steel industry and you need
only drive a little bit down 994 Dearborn

to the old Rouge plant, to see
a very good example of that.

Against this backdrop, so there are 3 crucial
reasons why I would say this relationship

matters and we've got to get it right.

But another point to keep in mind, and
we were talking about this with some

of the students today is that today's
Russia is not the Soviet Union,

and many American still conflate those two

and don't realize what changes
have taken place in Russia.

It is a far different country than the
country I first visited in 1976 as a student

or where I served as a diplomat in the 1980's.

Russia is now more connected with the rest
of the world than at any time in its history

and connected with the United Sates, and
you need only talk to the Russian students

who where studying here at the University of
Michigan who I meet every time I come here

to be confirmed, to be convinced to that fact.

The most conspicuous evidence of this change,
really a revolutionary change in Russia,

is the fact that Russians
are traveling more than ever.

In 2008, Russians made 36 million
trips abroad outside Russia.

That same year, almost 200, 000
Russians came to the United States.

That was a record including 32,000 students
who came during the summer just to work

on the famous Summer Work and Travel program
and you've probably ran into some of those kids

when you went up to Mackinac Island or Belle
Isle serving you or cleaning your rooms.

Those kids come, they add to our economy,
they see what America has to offer,

they go back to the United States,
they spend the money, they buy a car,

excuse me they go back to Russia.

And what we're finding is the kids who take part
in that program for 3 or 4 years learn about--

enough about the United States that many

of them enter grad school here
in the US on their own dime.

Russians are getting used to freedoms,
basically that they didn't have before.

Its-- Russia is one of the top
10 countries now in internet use.

A third of Russia is now
online and unlike in China,

there's no censorship with
the internet in Russia.

And the pervasive fear that Mel and I and many
of us remember as the leitmotif of existence

in the Soviet Union is pretty much gone now.

An entire generation has grown up, being
able to read and say whatever they want.

Now that's far from the whole story
and I'll have more to say on some

of the more worrisome democratic trends
in Russia over all but my point is

that we are no longer dealing
totalitarian levels of repression.

So, that I hope sets some of the contexts why
we need to work to have a better relationship

with Russia and why we can have a
different relationship with Russia

than we did have with the Soviet Union.

The reset is just a means to build that more
productive, more constructive relationship

so that we can serve our own interest.

It's about identifying pragmatic ways
that our countries can work together

to advance our respective
interest which we find when we sit

down to start working our
often common interests.

And while we have significant differences and
we'll continue to have differences on a number

of important issues, I'll talk about those.

Russia and the United States being
2 very large countries are bound

to have a different [inaudible]
from time to time.

President Obama and President Medvedev have
basically agreed that we can make a lot

of progress by focusing first
in the areas where our interest

and objectives are the most closely
aligned, and build back some of the trust,

some of the confidence that I talked
about having been lost over the last 7,

8 years for many reasons, for many
reasons many of which come out of Russia,

and aren't the fault of any administration.

And this effort really does start at the top.

It starts between the 2 presidents who spent a
lot of time together in 2009 almost 8 or 9 hours

in various groupings either
at the negotiating table

or having dinner together
or talking on the phone.

I was with them for very
many of those hours and I saw

that these are 2 men who
have fair amount in common.

They're both law, students of both law,
professors actually, both relatively young,

they are both very open to new ideas
technically they're very savvy, both plugged in,

Medvedev has his own blog now in Russia.

And most important, they are open to a
vision of how you can and how you need

to modernize institutions, to prepare them
for all the changes that we've already seen

in the first decade of the 21st Century and
the ones we can't even foresee on the horizon.

The 2 of them met for the first time in April.

And in the first declaration, the final
declaration that came out of that meeting

in London, they made a commitment to try to
move beyond the old habits of confrontation

and the Cold War and to make a
fresh start in the relationship.

Now to be fair, many US presidents have come
to power declaring the Cold War is over,

we're going to make a fresh start with Russia.

What President Obama and President
Medvedev determined was that more needed

to be done structurally to ensure
that that could actually happen

so it would go beyond whatever good relationship
the two presidents themselves came up with.

And so, they agreed that President Obama would
come to Moscow in July and he spent 3 days there

in a full blown summit on
a broad agenda of concerns,

meeting not only with the President Medvedev and
Prime Minister Putin but also with civil society

and business leaders, so that Obama could
get the best understanding of the situation

in Russia and try to understand not
just from the leadership but from others

and the Russian leader and
Russian business where the areas

for potential cooperation common interest lay.

And at the end of that meeting,
they issued Joint Declarations

on reaching a follow-on agreement to
the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

which we're working on right now, cooperating to
assist NATO in the United States in Afghanistan

which I'll talk about, and addressing
bilateral and global nuclear security questions.

These agreements really reaffirmed
that Washington

and Moscow share some common definitions
of what the problems are out there,

and agree in large part on how we see the world.

It doesn't mean we don't have disagreements but
in large part especially on the major nuclear

and extremist terrorist challenges,
we have common, a common view.

And at the end of the day I'd say the
recognition was when you add it all up,

there is still is a lot more that unites
Americans and Russians than divides us.

Now, to bring that down to a level of
detail talking about the specifics,

I would start by the strategic military
nuclear relationship between the 2 countries

which is really of primary
existential importance as I said.

There are a lot of pressing
issues on the bilateral level

that demonstrate the improved climate
of cooperation between the two countries

but I really point to 3 in
particular and the first is the need

to conclude a new Strategic Arms Limitation
Treaty, reduction treaty actually.

See, I dated myself there by calling
it SALT when it's actually START.

This would be the follow-on to the
START treaty that expired in December,

and the fact that we posses 95 percent of the
world's nuclear arsenal gives the United States

and gives Russia a unique global
responsibility to reduce the risk

that these weapons pose not only to
ourselves but to the world as a whole

if they were to fall into the wrong hands.

Reducing nuclear arsenals
and strengthening safeguards

against proliferation are the highest foreign
policy priority of the Obama Administration

and Russia's cooperation there is
really essential to our success.

Now, we had hoped, I had hoped that
I would be celebrating the signing

of the START treaty at this event today.

But we worked very hard on it to the end
of the year and we didn't quite get there.

The technical details are very complex.

The idea that you can really
negotiate a follow-on treaty

on nuclear reductions in 6 months was ambitious.

We set a very ambitious goal
but we didn't quite make it.

Nonetheless, there is a very broad agreement in
both governments from the very top that we have

to reduce the arsenals below the levels we
agreed in the last agreement and there's a lot

of political will on both sides in
Washington and Moscow from the 2 presidents

from Prime Minister Putin to make this happen.

Work is really continuing almost non-stop
now in Geneva, the discussions in Copenhagen

between the 2 presidents on the margins

of the Climate Control Summit brought us closer
together so I'm convinced really that by the end

of this month, we'll have reached
agreement and I expect and hope very much

that we'll have a signing of that
document sometime if not the end

of this month then certainly in February.

And this is important really,
again for a global reason.

The whole world is watching us.

If we, the two largest nuclear powers, the
remaining nuclear superpowers can agree

to reduce our arsenals then we're setting
an example then we have a better standing

to urge others to join us
to reduce their arsenals

and control their nuclear
weapons and materials as well.

So that's the first issue.

The second area of special interest and
focus for the US-Russia relationship

in 2009 going into 2010 is non-proliferation.

We have really reaffirmed that we
have this shared responsibility

to reduce the levels while safeguarding
the peaceful use of nuclear energy

and both presidents issued a Joint Declaration
at the July Summit that we would work together

to make further progress on this, drawing on
the 17 years of cooperation that we already have

under our belts which destroyed
tens of thousands of nuclear weapons

that eliminated an entire class of nuclear
weapons, intermediate range nuclear weapons gone

because Russia and the United
States agreed to eliminate them.

Both the US and Russia now confront
transnational terrorist and criminal groupings

which are intent on getting their hands on some

of these nuclear technology
and trafficking in it.

And of course there were regimes that
pursue nuclear weapons under the cover

of peaceful nuclear programs as we know.

President Obama and Medvedev committed
themselves to the global initiative

to combat nuclear terrorism which was
actually started under the Bush Administration

and which now unites 75 countries.

We agreed that we would strengthen U.N.
provisions to prevent none-state actors

from obtaining material and technology
related to weapons of mass destruction.

And as you may know this year the United States
is playing host both to the review conference

of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
and a stand alone Nuclear Security Summit

which will take place in the spring in
New York which President Obama called

for in a speech he made in Prague last year.

And these 2 international forums, United
States and Russia need to showcase the fact

that we are cooperating and not
arguing about these things anymore,

otherwise we don't have a prayer of making
any progress with the rest of the world,

set aside Iran and North Korea both
of which I'll talk in a minute.

We've also seen fresh cooperation through
existing multinational policy and action groups

and institutions to address the
specific challenges that are posed

by Nuclear Security by Iran and North Korea.

And there is further evidence that the
reset is actually paying dividends,

the position of Russia and the
United States vis-a-vis Iran

and vis-a-vis North Korea has never
been closer than it is right now.

The United States as you know, remains gravely
concerned about Iran's nuclear program,

about Iran's nuclear ambitions and we have
worked very closely with other partners

through the U.N., through the International
Atomic Energy Agency to develop a package

that would demonstrate to the Iranians that
the international community respects it's right

to a peaceful nuclear program provided
that Iran complies with it's obligations

under the nuclear None-Proliferation Treaty.

And through this past year, Russia and
the United States have partnered together

as never before cooperating to develop a very
creative proposal that would have brought

out 12 hundred kilos of the enriched Uranium
that the Iranians are working to stockpile,

and there by slowing down the
nuclear clock towards development

of a weapon that we're all concerned about.

Unfortunately, Iran has not
responded positively at all to this

but not because of anything that Russia did.

Russia is in many ways as annoyed and frustrated

by the recalcitrance of the
Iranians as we now are.

And for that reason we and Russia are now
working on a new tougher round of sanctions

against Iran which we hope
again will dissuade them

from what we think is their ultimate aim here.

Similarly, the US and Russia are working closer
than ever in the six-party process that's aimed

at a complete and verifiable
denuclearization of this Korean Peninsula,

the North Korean nuclear ambitions.

Russian support was absolutely critical this
year when the U.N. passed a sanctions resolution

which was the singles toughest
sanctions revolution to ever come--

resolution to ever come out of the
United Nations, and Russia joined us

and made no effort at all to water this down.

Our special envoy, Ambassador Stephen
Bosworth passed through Moscow in December

after his most recent trip to North Korea
to brief the Russians on what it learned

and to work together to consult a bit on
how we go forward in keeping the Americans,

the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, and
others together in delivering a common message

to Pyongyang, to the North Koreans.

A third area of cooperation that is
really essential is conflict resolution,

and that includes helping defeat Al-Qaeda,
restarting the negotiations between the Israelis

and the Palestinians, and reinforcing the
principle of sovereignty and independence

and the territorial integrity of all states.

We are working effectively now with Russia,
with France and other European countries to try

to resolve the frozen conflict
between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Again, we and the Russians
tactically have never consulted

or cooperated more on this
issue in my experience.

These are all unheralded,
unheadlined results of the reset.

Russia has also shown its support
for our efforts and NATO's efforts

to build a stable Afghanistan
that doesn't harbor extremists.

Russia obviously has a pressing interest there
since it's a much closer neighbor of Afghanistan

than we are, and Russia's concerns are even
less about terrorism and more about opiates,

more about drugs coming out of Afghanistan
and contributing to what has been an explosion

of drug use and related HIV/AIDS in Russia
directly related to what's happening

to the instability in Afghanistan.

So, during President Obama's
visit to Moscow in July,

he and President Medvedev actually signed an
agreement whereby Russia gives its consent

to the over flight of American
military transport planes

across Russian airspace carrying
troops and lethal military equipment

to help us resupply our forces and NATO
forces in Afghanistan, unprecedented.

And a signal of the fact that Russia sees
its interest in helping the United States

and helping NATO defeat a common
goal in Afghanistan more importantly

than it sees the needs sometimes to control what
happens in central Asia or control everything

that passes through it's airspace.

It's a very, very important
decision which is going

to help us do what President Obama said is
job one for us and that is get the upper hand

and win the fight eventually in Afghanistan.

So those are three strategic areas in which
the reset and the desire for a better relation

between the United States and Russia is
really starting to pay some dividends

or has prospects to pay dividends.

If you move on from that strategic
picture, it would be almost impossible

to discuss the last year without also mentioning
the growing economic and business relationship

between the United States and Russia.

I referred to that a little bit earlier
even amidst the economic downturn

in both of our countries.

During his July visit to Moscow,
President Obama stated a simple fact.

America needs a strong and prosperous
Russia to be a partner with us,

and quite simply good political relations
between the two countries are necessary

but they're not sufficient to
have a stable relationship.

We need solid foundation of trade and
economic relations that can serve as something

of a shock absorber as we go
through these inevitable cycles

of political agreement and disagreement.

Now, I already mentioned some of the many
American companies that are well established

and I would say even thriving in Russia,
creating jobs and opportunities back here

in the United States and also contributing to
their communities in Russia through their accent

on corporate philanthropy, an issue which
Russia doesn't have a strong tradition of.

Despite the crisis American companies in 2009
continued to open or expand plants in Russia,

in addition to the PepsiCo plant I
mentioned I went to the opening expansion

of a major Alcoa Plant in Russia, guardian glass
and Kraft foods opened or made major expansions

in 2009 and US companies high tech
companies like Motorola, Hewlett-Packard,

Sun Microsystems, Corning, Google,
are all established in Russia

and they're all helping support those Russians
who want to modernize and innovate the Russian

in economy in a way that
certainly answers our interests.

And increasingly, American companies are
investing in Russia also to tap into what is

or at least was until the crisis a
more affluent growing Russian market

on the global market place.

Microsoft for example, announced that it
would invest 300 million dollars in Russia

over the next 3 years and establish a technology
center in November in which Russian scientists

and Microsoft engineers are partners.

Intel has about a thousand engineers in
Russia working on research and development

of advance computer technologies.

We are dealing with the highly
literate, highly mathematically

and scientifically inclined population.

American companies had figure that out
and they are tapping into that in a way

that helps the Russian economy grow in the right
way but also helps our economy very, very much.

Cisco Systems has invested millions of dollars

in the joint venture capital fund that's
investing in Russian high technologies startup.

It's basically an investment fund.

GE has done the same thing.

But the best example for me is Boeing.

Boeing's investment in Russia is a very
good example of how U.S. investment

in the high tech sector is win-win
pays dividends on both sides.

When Secretary of State Clinton
came to Moscow in October,

we went with her to the Boeing
Design Center in Moscow.

It's the largest center for computer aided
design of aerospace structures in Europe.

And Russian engineers who were working
for Boeing and have had worked for Boeing

in this facility for the last 10
years helped design the aerodynamics

of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner which recently
had it's maiden flight in December in Seattle

and all of the titanium in that
Dreamliner, that new 787 is coming

from a joint venture production facility
with the Russians in Central Russia.

Now all of this level and-- of trade and
investment activity is obviously good for us

and it is paying dividends
but it's remarkable also

because in many ways Russia is still a very
tough place, not an easy place to do business.

The combination of bureaucratic,
administrative obstacles,

intertwined with the pervasive corruption
in Russia especially at the local

and the regional level still constitutes
a pretty significant risk premium

for American investors, American
businessmen who want

to enter the Russian market
or grow their businesses.

Just look at the Swedish company IKEA,
which has had phenomenal success in Russia

over the last 10 years opening exactly
the same kind of furniture stores

that they operate here selling
to that Russian middle class.

IKEA made a statement in the middle of 2009
saying they're suspending all new investment

in Russia and they had a lot of significant
investment on top because simply they're tired

of dealing with corrupt local
and regional officials.

This should be a wake up call.

US meat and poultry exporters
are very much in the same boat.

The biggest exports that we have to Russia
are meat and poultry, pork in particular.

But exporters face constant pressure from
protectionist forces inside Russia which want

to build walls and keep our products
out to the detriment of Russian health

and the Russian economy since our
protein, our chicken is cheaper

and more protein-laden than theirs.

But this is one of the reasons why another
priority for us is supporting the entry

of Russia into the World Trade Organization.

Very, very difficult to do, there have been some
backsliding over the last year but nothing--

no single action will drive
economic reform deeper

into the Russian system than joining the WTO.

Nothing will do more to help us benefit
from the free movement of goods and services

that makes all of our economies more
strong, more prosperous, and more stable.

Let me just talk briefly about
another couple of promising areas,

I want to leave some time for questions here.

Another promising area in the US-Russia
partnership in the 21st century is one

that Ambassador Levitsky, that Mel knows
a lot about, and that is law enforcement

on a global scale, fighting organized crime,
cyber crime, piracy, counter narcotics,

human trafficking, and other
forms of lawlessness

that don't respect international borders,
and here again, there's a lot going

on below the headlines that just
doesn't get the publicity it needs.

For instance, the FBI and the Russian
FSB, this is the successor to the KGB,

are cooperating effectively now to
cooperate to combat cyber crime,

that is a plague of credit card fraud that's
come out of Russia and washed over part

of the US banking sector that the FSB and the
FBI are working hand and glove to overcome.

The idea that the FSB, successor of the
KGB and the FBI can cooperate on anything,

makes my head spin from time
to time but it is a fact.

America and Russia are also
working in the drug front,

the American Drug Enforcement Administration,
and Russian customs last year partnered

on a major seizure of drugs in
the harbor of St. Petersburg,

it was actually cocaine from South America.

And Russian Police and Immigrations Officers
recently carried out a joint prosecution

of an American citizen who was running sex
trafficking ring in Russia using orphans.

These are areas in which we share the
same values with the Russians, believe me.

We're also cooperating to
address public health issues.

Russia faces challenges as I mentioned battling
HIV/AIDS, and drug resistant tuberculosis.

In July 2009, I signed an agreement with the
Russian Ministry of Health on cooperation

in public health and medical science.

And under this agreement already,
US and Russia experts are working

to strengthen Russia's efforts to combat
disease, to promote healthy lifestyle,

less drinking, less cigarette smoking, and
improve healthcare for mothers and children.

The US and Russia face similar
environmental challenges.

We've got mutual concerns about the
threat of pollution, about climate change,

about the depletion of natural
resources and biological diversity.

I'll give you just one example here.

Illegal logging, hazardous waste and pollutants

in the Arctic dramatically
affect both indigenous Russian

and American-Alaskan populations.

If we're not cooperating with the Russians

in that Arctic region, we're
only doing half the job.

And this year, the US Agency for International
Development and the Russian Forest Service,

signed an agreement to strengthen cooperation

and sustainable management
of forests through 2013.

This is a very big contribution to the
global fight against climate change

because Russia is the most heavily
forested country in the world,

and protecting those forests will do a lot
to help us battle the carbon challenges

that we're going to face in this century.

A final word about exchanges.

We have reached now the end of the 1st decade
of the 21st century that might be overtly fast,

and it's very clear that we can
still do a lot more to exchange

and share ideas between the two of our nations.

America and Russia have always been two of
the biggest exporters of ideas and culture

to the rest of the world, and one of
the best ways for Russians and Americans

to share their insights, to
bridge their differences,

and to learn more about each other is
through academic and scientific exchanges,

and we're not doing enough of it.

A lot of it is a resource problem, we do go back
to Congress but there is increasingly ability

to tap private sources of
funding for this as well.

I have-- I am a living proof
of the power of exchanges.

When I left Ann Arbor in 1976, I went
to Russia on that student exchange,

and the value of that program
in exposing me to the paradoxes

of the Soviet Union changed my life.

I stopped studying Slavic linguistics, and
started studying international relations,

and political science, to help me unravel
the riddle of the Soviet Union at that time.

I wasn't doing too well on those case endings
in 16th century old church Slavonic either so,

probably it wasn't a bad, bad choice for me.

But we need to increase and expand
the exchange that we have with Russia

because there's still too little
understanding between the two countries.

Sixty five percent of Russian's surveyed
still think America wants actively,

is seeking actively to weaken
Russia, to make it a weaker country.

For us, a weak Russia is really a nightmare
especially a weak Russia armed the way

that Russia is armed now in the
neighborhood Russia lives in.

But very difficult to convince the bulk
of people who grew up in the Cold War

and have been fed a steady diet of anti-American
propaganda through much of their lives.

So let me just talk briefly in
conclusion about the next steps,

what's on top for the reset in 2010 and 2011.

One of the most promising developments
of the past year, one of the best two

or the best things that the
two presidents came up with,

with the new idea is actually an old
idea, and it's one that Mel referred to

and that's a bilateral commission
between the two countries,

headed by President Obama
and President Medvedev.

This was agreed at the July summit, it was
agreed there would be about 16 working groups

under this presidential commission focusing
not only on nuclear security or health

but also issues like space, cultural
exchanges, sports, a whole range of issues

to build a structure of interaction
below the level of presidents.

The commission really aims to provide
that structure that you need to have

in the US-Russia relationship
especially in Russia where a green light

from the top sometimes opens the door in a way

that our more decentralized
bottom-up system doesn't need.

And this commission focuses not only on
government to government context at a high level

but it also strengthens the people
to people and business context

that already exist and helps expand them.

It encompasses as I mentioned sports,
education, I left out drug trafficking, energy,

the environment, and much of the
progress that we hoped to achieve

in the US-Russia relationship
over the next year will come

as a result of the work in this commission.

The ultimate goal is a more multidimensional
US-Russia relationship that doesn't just depend

on whether or not the two
presidents or the two Secretaries

of State, Foreign Ministers, get along.

So, all of that is a very positive, very forward
looking picture of the US-Russian agenda.

It's substantial.

It holds a great deal of progress.

But as I said before, the US-Russia
relationship, the reset in the relationship aims

for progress not only in the areas where
we have and can identify common interest

or where the interests are
at least easy to describe.

It also aims to get at those issues
where we have to narrow our differences

or our world views are somewhere,
somehow divergent.

And one of those areas in which we
hoped to be able to make more progress

as we build trust back into the
relationship is Russia's relationship

with its nearest neighbors, the Independent
States of the former Soviet Union,

the former Warsaw Pact nations
of Central and East Europe.

The problem is that those states still feel
under pressure from Russia and from those people

in Russia who still measure Russia's
power the old fashion way by the degree

to which Russia's neighbors are weak.

And I would say that Moscow's recognition of the
disputed territories in Georgia, South Ossetia

and Abkhazia, is a conspicuous
example of this problem.

It happened after the Russian
invasion of Georgia in 2008,

and even though Russia hasn't had a tremendous
diplomatic success in winning other nations

to that recognition, I think only
Nicaragua and Narao have recognized.

Russia has made very, very clear that it
is not back tracking on its own recognition

of these two parts of the independent
sovereign nation of Georgia.

This is part of what's Zbigniew
Brzezinski recently call

and I think very astutely an
imperial nostalgia, a Russia,

a part of Russia that defines Russia's strength
by how much it controls the border lands

and how much it can push back against the
United States and Western Europe as opposed

to pulling with us on joint issues.

So, where do we go?

We need to find a way to talk to Russia about
the sovereignty and independence not only

of Georgia but also of Ukraine, the
other states of the former Soviet Union,

including the [inaudible] that makes clear that
we do not accept any pretensions on the part

of anyone in Russia that Russia enjoys a
unique or privileged sphere of influence

or sphere of interest in those countries.

The difficulty is there because many Russians
will take a long time to be convinced to that.

But we need to agree on the
tactics to make this happen.

Another area of legitimate concern and focus
for us is Russia's democratic development.

I mentioned earlier that in many ways, Russia
has never been more open to the outside world

than the Russian people have never been
more free to express their opinions

or speak their mind and it's a real
paradox that many of those Russians

in speaking their mind are quick to say that
the Russia that they live in is not the kind

of democratic society that they hoped
to see when the Soviet Union fell apart.

Because organized political activity is still
closely controlled by the Kremlin to make sure

that the ruling party, United Russia
enjoys something of a monopoly

or at least enjoys no significant competition.

News broadcasts on the main
Russian television channel which is

where most Russians get their news, are still
closely controlled and monitored by the Kremlin.

And Russia as we know sadly is still
one of the most dangerous countries

on the earth to be a journalist it.

We had a meeting at a graduate seminar with a
woman from Russia who works for Novaya Gazeta,

one of the really fearless online and also print
newspapers in Russia, and she said she has had 4

or 5 of her colleagues killed,
murdered in Russia.

Sixteen reporters have been killed
in Russia since 2000 and only one

of those murders has been solved,

that's according to the committee
to protect journalists.

Corruption in the Russian Government and
especially in the judicial system as I mentioned

with regard to investment
is still rampant in Russia.

As in many other countries of the former
Soviet Union, the transition to a freer

and more democratic society that all
envisioned in the early 1990's is not smooth.

It's not without setbacks.

It's not without backsliding.

But I lived long enough in what
was a very morally bankrupt system.

The totalitarianism of the 1970's
and 1980's when I lived in Russia,

to know that there is no going back to
that level of control and repression,

there is no going back to the worst excesses
of the Soviet Union, a system of a Gulag.

That road back I would say
is definitely closed off.

But the road ahead for Russia
is not completely clear.

And so for us, our national interest
demands that we maintain a productive,

constructive relationship with this
country to ensure that her transition

to a prosperous democracy, the prosperous
democracy that my Russian friends

in Moscow tell me they deserve after everything
they have been through in the last 20 years,

happen sooner to them rather than later.

A final thought, Secretary of State Clinton
came to Moscow in October and she said in answer

to one of the students who talked to her
at Moscow State University and asked her

about the multipolar world, she said, "We
don't want to live in a multipolar world.

We want-- Americans want to
live in a multi partner world."

As global powers, Russia and the United
States have interests in almost every problem

that faces the world today as I've said
from non-proliferation of nuclear weapons

to the faith of the polar
bears in the Arctic region.

And we need to have open creative minds, looking
for ways which we can learn from each other,

show some respect for each other when warranted,

and work together on behalf
of our mutual interest.

As I've tried to stress, there is a
strong streak of pragmatism that runs

through the US-Russia relationship going
back far beyond the beginning of the Cold War

or even the Russian revolution,
going back 200 years to when Russia

and the United States first
established diplomatic relations.

And the current momentum surrounding the
reset can be used to build a more productive,

a more cooperative relationship
between the United States and Russia

and that'll be a great thing for our country
and it'll be a great thing for the world,

and it is a great honor for me to be
involved in that in any small way.

I am greatly honored to have been asked
by President Bush to take this job,

I'm very honored that president
Obama saw fit to keep me in the job,

and for as long as I am earning your
taxpayer dollars, I pledge to you every ounce

of my creativity and my energy to try

to make this important relationship
pay dividends for all of you.

And now, since I sense there is a great deal
of experience, and even expertise out there,

I look forward to the best part of this event
for me and that's a chance to hear your feedback

and your reactions to what I've had to say,

so that I as an American Ambassador representing
the American people can get it right, thank you.

[ Applause ]

Thanks.

>> So, if we-- we have a
microphone here, please come up here

if you want to ask questions, please.

>> You spent time talking about nuclear
weapons in relation to North Korea and Iran.

I wonder if you could remind
us how many nuclear weapons are

in our friends in India, Pakistan, and Israel?

Which of those 5 countries have signed
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

And what's being done about
these other countries, thank you.

>> It is absolutely true that India, Pakistan,
and Israel are acknowledged as nuclear powers.

Some declared, some not.

It's also a fact that none of those 3 countries
signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And thereby-- thus, they
did not obligate themselves

to maintain a strictly peaceful Nuclear
Program, in the way that the Iranians

and the North Koreans did when they joined
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,

when they signed up to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The dangers that the world faces from any
potential nuclear capability in Israel,

I would argue are less than those the
world faces from a nuclear armed Iran,

and you need only look at Saudi
Arabia and Egypt which existed--

coexisted with a great deal
of equanimity over the years

with a supposed Israeli Nuclear
Program but have only begun to talk

about developing their own Nuclear Programs in
response to what they see happening inside Iran.

To me, that is the probably single, biggest
litmus test of where the real threat

from those Nuclear Programs lies.

Sir.

>> I'm a high energy nuclear physics professor
here, or [inaudible] professor I should say,

and I've been heavily involved
with working in Russia

under the Peaceful Use of
Atomic Energy Agreement.

You probably know this was started by a speech
by President Eisenhower at the United Nations

in 1953, I think he waited until
Stalin died because he knew Stalin

from World War II and didn't expect much.

And this was I think one of the first agreements
between Russia and America after World War II,

and during the middle of the Reagan
Era, I think in 1983, all cultural

and scientific agreements
were canceled except this one.

Then in 2002, just as we were shipping 4 and
a half tons of high tech electronics to Russia

for our next experiment, it was suspended

and our equipment was impounded
and held for 8 months.

>> What year was that?

>> '02, '02.

>> I'm sorry, maybe on this to 2002--

>> No, no, you didn't, I just
want to make sure I got it right.

>> Yeah, well I probably said it wrong.

>> No.

>> And this caused lots--
a lot of us a big problem,

and I think it really upset the Russians a
great deal because it was not suspended in 1983

in the middle of the evil empire crisis,
and it still hasn't been restarted,

and is there any idea when
it's going to be restarted,

it was a very inexpensive but
mutually beneficial thing?

>> What-- give me the name of the program again?

>> Peaceful Use of Atomic Energy.

Eisenhower made a speech by that
title at the United Nations,

and a few months later the International Atomic
Energy Commission was founded under the auspices

of the United Nation, and Eisenhower and-- my
history is not good, I'm not sure who is head

of Russia at that time but
they signed the agreement

and since then it's been resigned every
5 years by the Secretary of Energy

or the Atomic Energy Commission in those days.

So, it-- there was a lot of talk about it.

It was kind of getting to be, just
after Obama was elected but as far

as I can tell not much has happened.

>> I'm not familiar with that specific
agreement, I know we have a range

of agreements falling under the
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program

that none more popularly as the
Nunn-Lugar Programs that I referred

to when I said we've had 17 years of success in
lowering the nuclear threat destroying weapons,

but also in safeguarding and securing nuclear
materials, and making it possible for there

to be more peaceful use of nuclear materials in
places like radiological centers and hospitals.

I think also one of the most promising areas for
the United States, Russia and other countries

to cooperate on peaceful maintenance of nuclear
stocks is the idea of a nuclear fuel bank

where countries which desire
to have enriched Uranium

for their peaceful nuclear power plants don't
even need to develop [inaudible] themselves,

they can simply go to a bank of this
material which is held in Russia

and Russia is building a facility
right now that we're supporting,

or eventually some other country.

And this reduces-- helps us
reduce the proliferation risk

from the transfer of this material.

>> [Inaudible] I perhaps in my year--
you're not involved in nuclear reactor,

we work [inaudible] I think that's why I should
have a [inaudible] our ancestors started the

atomic bomb [inaudible].

[ Inaudible Discussion ]

>> Okay, thank you, thanks very much.

>> Well, I'm sure you're aware Vladimir
Putin has made several authoritarian gestures

within Russia such as shutting down TV stations,
arresting Russia's most wealthiest businessmen

and yet he still maintains approximately
a 70 percent approval rating.

I'm just wondering does that authoritarian
movement, were you at all as far as the future

of democracy goes as the far as the future of
United States-Russian relations and the reset.

>> It does, I mentioned that
Russia's democratic development is not

of marginal importance to United States.

It is extremely important for
us to understand that Russia--

intends to develop and cultivate the core
freedoms that we see as part and parcel

of a strong prosperous society, freedom of
speech, freedom of political association,

freedom of the media, and a judicial system
which actually responds to the people

and is accountable to them
at the end of the day.

As I said, it's not a clear straight path
and when we see deviations from that path,

when we see pressure against independent media.

When we see peaceful demonstrations
in Russia broken up through violence,

when we see peaceful people like Ludmila
Alexeeva, an 82 year old human rights activist

that Mel and I knew in the 60's, in the
1970's when we see her thrown in jail.

We have a lot of concern as to whether or
not Russia really intends to build that kind

of society which we at the end of the
day, know we can trust and partner with.

When I was nominated to be Ambassador
in my statement at the confirmation here

and in the Senate I said that
Russia's capability and willingness

to build the institutions of civil society
of a democratic [inaudible] will be the--

the I don't know will be the signals
to us that we are dealing with a Russia

that over the long term we can
build a stronger partnership with.

And I was criticized by that, by some
Russian officials who said you're lecturing,

you are telling us what way
we need to build our society.

All I was stating and all I state is what I
think is an elementary fact that societies

which respect the rights of their people and--
and governments which are ultimately accountable

to the will of the people are stronger in the
long run and stronger partners is what we need

in the 21st century, not weaker ones.

>> Oh yes Ambassador on-- how do you see
Russia's role in the world politically,

economically, and also the
relationship with United States changing

with the relatively new rise of India
and China as great powers, as a--

with their drawing level of-- of
economic and military importance?

>> It, it is I think an indication that
this is an extremely complicated world

and that certainly the bipolar model
that existed through the cold war

and maybe even immediately after the demise
of the Soviet Union no longer applies

that we are dealing with the
rise of countries like India,

like China which will be significant
stake holders in the International System

in the 21st century and which are demanding
a bigger say in how the world is governed

in the 21st century, and the fact that we've
move from the G8 or G7 which included Russia

but didn't include China, didn't include
India to a G20 which is much more inclusive

of the major world economies I think is a
recognition of the fact that we need to evolve,

that we need to take look at the power
relationships that served us fairly well

or atleast were familiar
to us in the 20th century,

and explore how those can be restructured so
that we can both confront and resolve some

of the most pressing challenges
that are facing in this century.

Ones that didn't even exist 20
years ago, for instance cyber crime.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you Ambassador for-- this
is not working, sorry about that.

Thank you for your beautiful, inspiring speech
and very comprehensive-- it was very enjoyable.

I have two questions?

One is with regards to Ukraine,
and up coming elections.

>> Now, wait a minute, let us not see.

>> Yes.

>> Okay.

>> We will try to turn the microphone out of the
way so I'll have to repeat the whole question.

>> How is it now?

No?

[ Pause ]

I don't know.

What is it?

It's-- there is, that is to the-- that
is a, hello A, B, C, one, two, three.

[laughing], No.

>> Okay well just, just ask your question and
I'll summarize it for those who didn't hear.

>> I'll ask a question as loud as I can.

>> Let's make it easier.

Why don't you come here?

>> Okay.

>> Here, tell you what, take this off--

>> Yeah.

>> And you just carry this.

>> Oh yeah-- it's okay.

I can manage.

>> I used to work, I use to work--

>> Is it on?

No. Sorry, okay.

Sorry, okay.

Back to where we were.

>> You better stay in your job as ambassador.

>> Okay.

>> I think I will.

>> Okay, so I have 2 questions.

One is which is with regards to the upcoming
elections in Ukraine and the how much weight,

and how much lever does the United
States have been ensuring the more

or less democratic elections and whether the
United States are willing to pull those levers

in case the Russia as a silent--
silent partner behind antidemocratic

and anti Western candidates are using for
to their benefit so, what is America can do?

What can America do?

In order to remove the silent partner,
partner out of the [inaudible]?

It's the first question and the
second is related to politics.

It's about the Arctic Circle
exploration of the ocean floor

and the Russians claims very imperialistically.

They consider themselves owners of the--

yet to be discovered deposits of
energy [inaudible] and fossil fuels.

>> Okay.

>> Thank you.

>> With regard to the Ukrainian
presidential elections which are coming

up January 17th then what can
the United States do to ensure--

of lets say a favorable outcome there?

I think what we can do is
what we are doing right now.

We are supporting those Ukrainians
who are determined to ensure

that those elections are conducted fairly and
represent the will of the Ukrainian people.

We in United States have made it very, very
clear that we support a fair and open process.

We do not support individuals as
the desired outcome of the process.

We will have a relationship with
whatever president of Ukraine,

the Ukrainian people in the end agree to elect.

If it is a free and fair election and there is
a great deal of international observation going

on right now and a great deal of internal
Ukrainian monitoring as well to make sure

that those elections are
conducted in a free and fair way.

We will deal with the outcome
of that election and frankly,

a free and fair process means an absence of undo
outside influence in the lead up to the election

as well not simply the fact that the polls
are conducted fairly on election day,

but that the media of environment, that the
ability of opposition candidates to have access

to the media and have access to campaign
rallies and the people is respected.

And my feeling is that until now we are-- the
United States is fairly happy with the level

of competition that we've
seen take place in Ukraine.

The outcome of the election again
to be determined and we will deal

with whatever emerges from that
because we have a very important stake

in an independent sovereign,
strong Ukraine as much

as we do an independent,
strong, and sovereign Russia.

With regard to the Arctic shelf and
the claims on the part of some--

in Russia that verge on territorial.

I think our view on that is that we
have a lot of work to do with Russia

on the scientific front to ensure
that we understand what's happening

in the Arctic regions now with respect
to the effects of climate change.

The Russians have atleast as
much interest as we do in this.

There are some people who argue, somewhat
frivolously I think that Russia has a stake

in global warming because it increases
the amount of arable land in Russia.

My discussion-- my discussion with
Russian scientists and Russian leaders is

that they're very concerned in understanding
what the effects of global warming are

in their northern regions since Russia
is an Arctic country and we are very,

very much focused on the scientific cooperation

that can give us both a better
understanding with that.

Right now there are American scientists
and Russian scientists working in Siberia,

drilling down to an ancient lake, which have
been frozen in the permafrost for centuries

to actually discover what the earlier
cycles of warming and freezing were.

That's the kind of cooperation we want to focus
on and I think we do a disservice sometimes

by paying attention to those loud voices in
Russia that want to plant flags in places

because there is really no
practical effect to that at all.

>> Any other questions?

>> Well since your microphone doesn't work,
I'll speak very loudly, it's a brief question--

>> Standup, standup please.

>> If you see.

>> Come talk to this one.

>> A reduction in emphasis in American
universities with regard to Russia

and the former Soviet Union countries and a
shift away toward arabic languages for example

and minimizing and reducing departments
in the Russian language for example.

>> Yeah, I actually watch that fairly closely
and we were looking at that in particular

in the working group with the
presidential commission devoted

to education and educational exchanges.

I think it is a natural maybe unfortunate but a
natural consequence of the end of the Cold War.

When Russia when the Soviet Union was
central to the existential interest

of the United States and
that's simply less true now.

>> But what I think-- hope I try to point out
is that we still need a productive relationship

with Russia and there is still a great
deal of misunderstanding if 70, 60,

70 percent of Russians really
believe that America wants

to weaken Russia then we've got a problem.

If the majority of American high school
students think that the United States fought

against Russia in the second
World War on the side

of Germany then we also have a problem there--
we there's a great deal of misunderstanding

about this 2 great countries which share kind

of common destiny [inaudible]
got it right in the 19 century.

When he talked about this 2 sleeping giants
as we were then, and the kind of cultural

and educational exchange that we need
to foster and frankly with the advent

of great 21st century communications
can do much more easily

and cheaply now is not being tapped into enough.

I know that from my own experience and I can
tell you only that we are determine to try

to increase the level of interest
and understanding on the part

of American students vis-a-vis
Russia and vice versa.

>> I guess I get the luxury of one
question and you can ask the last.

Could I? I was struck by the-- if you
read the New York Times this morning

about Ludmila Alexeeva there were
a couple of quotes from human--

Russian human rights groups that struck
me that lead me to this question.

What they were basically saying is we
have the elite, the elite educated class

in Russia intellectuals-- this is a
common thing in the Russia after all.

Understand the need for democratic
development, what we don't have are 70 percent

of the population that supports
actually the kind of strong arm politics

that President Putin has either
instituted or sponsored at least allowed

and so the question becomes, you know,
if we are for democratic development

and the Russian populations seems
more concerned about stability order,

economic well being getting their
pensions and that kind of think.

What is it that the United States can do?

We've been sort of kicked out of the
working with NGO's in many respects,

what is it that we are doing or what, what
plans do we have on this Binational commission

or whatever kind of institutions will exist.

>> Well there are still a lot of
work interms of programs and projects

that the United States is caring out in Russia
to help bolster institutions of civil society,

non-governmental organizations,
human rights groups.

That hasn't stop that work got more
difficult over the last 4 or 5 years.

Especially in response to the Orange Revolution
in Ukraine the [inaudible] revolution in Georgia

which some in the positions of power in Russia's
saw as a US-inspired plot to weaken Russia

which lead to something that someone called
the kind of Orange Paranoia on the part

of Russian leaders and actually
got them to criticize US funding

for Russian non-governmental
organizations in a way

that made those organizations drop not
just American but western funding as well.

I think some of that over reaction I
would call it is beginning to ride itself

and as I said we are still continuing through
USAID to carry up programs that help Russians

who want to strengthen their society

through stronger human rights non-governmental
organizations to have the understanding

and the wherewithal and the capacity to do that.

And again we do that not because we somehow want
to weaken Russia but because we are convinced

and those Russians themselves are
convinced that they want a stronger--

this will make their country stronger.

And I think we and the Russians probably just
need to do a better job of talking about that

in a way that begins to get that at that 70
percent if its infact 70 percent of Russians

who still doubt that this somehow
ultimately is a plus for their country.

These are people in that 70 percent who
suffered a lot over the last 20 years,

who lost a lot of wealth and who in many
ways are nostalgic for a kind of stability

and predictability that the Soviet
Union represented having forgotten a lot

of the bad aspects of that.

And much of this has to do with public
education, public policy and outreach.

My abilities as a US Ambassador
to go on television speak Russian,

gets to add some of that but if we don't have
Russian leaders talking about the importance

of those values and those standards it,

it would be while before 70
percent goes down to 50 or even 40.

Last question?

>> Okay, the last question is about East Asia.

I'm from Japan so I'm [inaudible] current
issues in East Asia and the like--

as you said, there are no [inaudible]
or the major exercise of China.

So historically there are-- loose
here, [inaudible] the United States

about their influence to their-- those
regions as a known Asian countries,

and like we change is-- does Russia still have
ambition to take up control of [inaudible]

on these regions or, or there are less
priority compared to these other regions.

>> Well I think you are right that
historically the United States

and Russia sometimes have competed for influence
in the East Asia regions in the Pacific region

but I see us really cooperating more than
competing now through institutions like APEC,

through the 6 party talks to dissuade the
North Koreans from their nuclear ambitions.

And I think the fact that China is rising now
and will be a major world power already is

and will be even stronger over the next decades
really underscores the importance for Russia

of getting that equation right because when I
talk to thoughtful Russians they really admit

at the end of the day that the
expansion of NATO is not the major threat

to Russian security in the 21st century.

They see a major challenge arising
from a China which is on their border

with a huge population pressing into areas
which are resource rich but population poor.

And Russia's ability to have a productive
relationship with Japan with South Korea

and with the United States gives Russia more
leverage to help confront that challenge

from a rising rush a rising China which
may not have aggressive designs on Russia

but just inexorably through the force of
population growth and the lack of population

in those regions will inevitably
encroach on Russian interest.

And Russia needs a strong
multinational relationship in order

to have another lever to
confront that challenge.

>> Well, it's the final word.

Thank you all for coming on behalf of the Weiser
Center since I have a foot in the Weiser Center

as well and of the Ford School, the
International Policy Center, thank you so much.

So many of the issues that we study in these, in
these institutions have been raised in your talk

and in your and the answers to
the, the questions as you had.

To paraphrase but be more serious about this

than with the original quote I feel a little
bit safer in knowing that you are there

in Moscow, I sleep better at night.

But I say that seriously, it is-- it is a
real pleasure to see a trained career diplomat

with that kind of knowledge of
both the language, the culture,

and the history of a country that is so
important to us serving the United States

in Moscow and I think on that basis and for
your remarks today lets all give Ambassador

John Beyrle--

[ Applause ]

>> We are going to expect this many
people so there is a reception outside but