[House Hearing, 115 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] RUSSIA: COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNER OR FANNING THE FLAMES? ======================================================================= JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ NOVEMBER 7, 2017 __________ Serial No. 115-75 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 27-512PDF WASHINGTON : 2017 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California PAUL COOK, California LOIS FRANKEL, Florida SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii RON DeSANTIS, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois TED S. YOHO, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada LEE M. ZELDIN, New York NORMA J. TORRES, California DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York Wisconsin ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York ANN WAGNER, Missouri TED LIEU, California BRIAN J. MAST, Florida FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia Vacant Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade TED POE, Texas, Chairman JOE WILSON, South Carolina WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California LOIS FRANKEL, Florida PAUL COOK, California BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada LEE M. ZELDIN, New York NORMA J. TORRES, California BRIAN J. MAST, Florida BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia ------ Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York TED POE, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts Wisconsin DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania C O N T E N T S ---------- Page WITNESSES Colin P. Clarke, Ph.D., political scientist, RAND Corporation.... 8 Svante Cornell, Ph.D., senior fellow for Eurasia, director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, American Foreign Policy Council........................................................ 20 Mr. Simon Saradzhyan, director of the Russia Matters Project, assistant director of U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School......................................... 34 Michael Carpenter, Ph.D., nonresident senior fellow, Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council, senior director of the Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, University of Pennsylvania..................................... 47 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Colin P. Clarke, Ph.D.: Prepared statement....................... 11 Svante Cornell, Ph.D.: Prepared statement........................ 23 Mr. Simon Saradzhyan: Prepared statement......................... 36 Michael Carpenter, Ph.D.: Prepared statement..................... 49 APPENDIX Hearing notice................................................... 86 Hearing minutes.................................................. 87 The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and chairman, Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats: Prepared statement.............. 88 RUSSIA: COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNER OR FANNING THE FLAMES? ---------- TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2017 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade and Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC. The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:16 p.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ted Poe (chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade) presiding. Mr. Poe. The subcommittees will come to order. Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record, subject to the length limitation in the rules. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes in my opening statement. The purpose of this hearing is to unmask Putin's two-faced game in the fight against terrorism. In 2015, Russia began a military intervention in Syria claiming it was waging war on ISIS and international terrorism. To some, this was welcome news. It seemed that there may be a rare moment of cooperation between former Cold War foes. Moscow and Washington would be able to work together to combat terrorism. This was fantasy. Moscow's actions in Syria has shown it is more interested in saving the brutal Assad regime than fighting ISIS. To accomplish this goal, the Kremlin partnered with Iran and its terrorist proxies to suppress Syrians calling for democracy. While Moscow certainly has killed some known terrorists and helped reduce territory controlled by ISIS, it has also strengthened other terrorists. Its reckless methods and support for Assad the butcher destroyed any chance of Russia being an effective counterterrorism partner with us. Russia's indiscriminate bombing has targeted hospitals, schools, convoys, and rescue crews, like the heroic White Helmets. Its campaign of terror drove once moderate Syrians to embrace extremist groups that also fight Assad and his backers. Despite our success in retaking key ISIS strongholds, Russian officials claim the U.S. supports ISIS and consistently threatens our forces in Syria. Meanwhile, new Russian-made military equipment is increasingly showing up in the hands of Iranian-backed terrorist groups like the notorious Hezbollah. Even more dangerous, Russia is effectively carving an Iranian-controlled corridor that stretches from Tehran to the borders of Israel, threatening our valued ally Israel. Putin is laying the foundation for chronic instability in this vital part of the world. Moscow cannot be our partner so long as it continues to enable the terrorist state Iran, prop up Assad, arm Israel's foes, and contribute to the slaughter and misery of millions of Syrians. Syria is not the only place where the Kremlin is backing terrorism. Senior U.S. military officials have claimed that Russia is now arming its former enemies, the Afghan Taliban, providing them with machine guns and other medium-weight weapons. We also know that Putin has backed violent separatists in Ukraine and Georgia in his bloody quest to bully and conquer his neighbors. He arms thugs, inflaming ethnic tensions, and secretly sends his own soldiers, the little green men, across the border. Putin is destabilizing countries that aspire to have closer ties with the West. We should not be fooled. These separatists are not noble freedom fighters. Pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine have been accused by the U.N. of murder, kidnapping, and torture. In the last 16 months, these separatists have used car bombs to target Ukrainian security guards, journalists, and Kremlin critics, and they continue to ignore cease-fire agreements. They are terrorists of a different stripe, but like jihadists, they believe they can achieve their political goals through violence and political terrorism. This should be no surprise since their patron, the Kremlin, uses terror to maintain its own grip on power. Putin routinely orders the assassination of political opponents and journalists exposing his corruption. According to U.S. intelligence officials, at least 14 mysterious deaths are suspected to be linked to the Kremlin that occurred in the U.K. alone. Russian terrorism has even struck this city, the Nation's capital, Washington, DC. In 2015, Putin's former media czar came here to meet with our Justice Department and to discuss issues that were common to the United States and to what this individual had to say and share the inner workings of the Kremlin's propaganda machine. Mysteriously, he never made it to the meeting. Instead, he was found dead from blunt force injuries. Investigators ruled it an accident, but members of the FBI have claimed otherwise. This is unacceptable. The pattern of prominent Russians and Kremlin critics who end up dead under shady circumstances is impossible to ignore. The fact that Putin's terror has reached our shores should be taken seriously by Americans. Russia does have a serious Islamic problem, there should be no mistake about it. Since 1970, more than 3,500 Russians are believed to have been killed in over 800 terrorist attacks. Islamic radicals from Chechnya have conducted attacks across Russia, including the 2004 Beslan school massacre that murdered 300 people. ISIS has also struck at Russia, blowing up a Russian charter plane over the Sinai in 2015. According to a recent report, Russia is the largest source, however, of foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq. With this shared threat, the United States and Putin should be able to be natural allies against terrorism--but Putin's brutal conduct and persistent ambition to rival the U.S. has made Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. Putin arms terrorists like the Taliban, Hezbollah, and thugs around the world so long as they advance his personal goals to undermine democracy and challenge America. It is time we see Putin for what he is. He is an international terrorist. And I will yield to the ranking member on the subcommittee, from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating, for his opening statement. Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing today on Russia and the question of whether Russia can be a reliable counterterrorism partner to the United States. It is important because what we are talking about are human lives at stake. These are our servicemen and -women overseas risking their lives to fight terrorism. These are our neighbors and loved ones. We just had an attack in New York City 1 week ago where eight innocent lives were taken. They are our children studying abroad, our friends, family members finally taking that trip to Europe where our allies have suffered far too many horrific terrorist attacks. They are the brave law enforcement and first responders who run toward the attack when everyone else is running away from it. Today we are here to talk about who we trust to protect the people we care about most. If we choose to partner with another country to fight terrorism we need to know we are fighting with the same people in mind and the same goals. I think we have all seen and were touched by the illustration after the attacks in Brussels last year that showed a tearful French flag comforting a tearful Belgian flag. A strong terrorism partner knows what is at stake and fights alongside you so that both countries can be safer. We have strong allies fighting terrorism. We have partners who we can trust with our intelligence and who, when we put our own men and women in harm's way to make us safer, do not actively undermine their safety and counteract their hard-fought efforts to reduce the threat of terrorism. So the question at hand today is, can Russia be one of those partners? Sure, there are instances where Russian self- interest happens to intersect with ours, and absolutely we should continue working toward better deconfliction when our militaries are both operating in the same space. But that is not what makes a true ally. When you head into a foxhole together, it is pretty important you make sure you know the guy or gal who is in there with you. Well, Russia, Russia attacked the United States. Russia set out in a coordinated plan to undermine and influence our democracy, the very heart of what it means to be an American. The Russian Government, the very government this administration is arguing should be our partner on counterterrorism, did this through spreading lies, through actual attacks on our voting systems in 21 states. And as egregious as that is, it is not over yet. Allies do not attack each other. What we are uncovering as we learn more about the Russian efforts to infiltrate American social media is that their efforts are robust and they are calculated. This is not some random account here or there. This is a profound effort by a foreign country to attack the very underpinnings of our democracy and our right to live freely in it. These are attacks on our country, let's call it what it is, because when we look our servicemen and -women in the eyes, we should be completely honest about who we are trusting as partners to keep them and us safe. Pretty soon we will have been at war in the fight against terrorism for two decades. Within its first year in office this administration has signed the orders to send more troops to Afghanistan. Well, we have a crystal clear illustration of what it means to have Russia as a counterterrorism partner by looking at Afghanistan. As we send more of our own, our children, our spouses, our friends, off to fight for greater security and stability, Russia is quite literally counteracting our efforts through their support of the Taliban, and through the Taliban, al-Qaeda. This is not some tricky geopolitical, international relations game theory puzzle. This is a question of who is going to have our back when our women and men are in the field; who is going to work to minimize the resources we expend in this fight because we are fighting for the same goal of eliminating terrorism together. But Russia has time and time again been willing to risk the safety of our men and women in uniform, and through their apparently never-ending attacks on our democracy would rather undermine our stability and security and weaken us than work together with us to make a stronger counterterrorism partner. So we must ask, why are we convening this congressional hearing today? Well, we are asking this question because the President of the United States keeps giving the wrong answer, and we should be very concerned about his answer. We should be concerned that new discoveries in the Trump- Russian investigations, like the Russian attacks on our democracy, keep coming to light. I believe the most recent numbers I have seen now: There are nine individuals with proximity to the now President who had contacts with Russia during the campaign and transition. There are indictments now in the special counsel's investigation into the campaign. And we seem to never stop learning about more concerning ties between Russia and this administration, including those still serving. We owe it to every victim of terrorism and to every individual we are working to ensure never becomes a victim of terrorism, we owe it to our servicemen and -women and every American that we represent here in Congress to be very careful when we choose who we are going to trust as a partner in fighting terrorism. Russia has failed time and time again to demonstrate it shares our goal of a safe and secure America. Frankly, it just doesn't add up how this administration can still be suggesting that Russia can be our partner in this fight when Russia is so intent on fighting us. I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us on this important topic. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Poe. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I will yield to Mr. Rohrabacher from California, who is the chairman of the Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittee, for his opening remarks. Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, thank you, Chairman Poe, and thank you for initiating this hearing today. I am happy to be part of what I think will be an important discussion, even though I obviously disagree with everything that has just been said. In my subcommittee, I held a hearing on a similar topic just over 2 years ago. Since then, we have a new President in the White House who is, as we have just heard, genuinely interested to see if relations with Russia can be improved, as compared to the last 10 years of unrelenting hostility from the United States toward Russia. I believe that the fact that our President wants to seek out and try to see if there are areas we can actually cooperate in--I think that is a good thing. I think it is a positive development for both of our countries. It is significant that today is the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, a date which reminds us of the dark and bloody Soviet history. And I am proud that I played a significant part in the destruction of the Bolshevik regime that controlled the Soviet Union up until Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War as it should have been ended, peacefully, and reaching out to those people--and standing up, I might add, as well. In Afghanistan, which has been mentioned, I seem to remember who armed the Taliban. I seem to remember who armed and organized the Taliban, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Yet I have never heard so much volatileness that maybe the Russians-- I don't know what the Russians are doing in Afghanistan. I am going to be very interested in hearing our witnesses on that. So, although there are those who would treat Russia today as if it were still the Soviet Union, that period of time is now behind us, thank God. Although the flaws of the current Russian Government are evident, as we have heard some described in these last few moments, it behooves us to recognize that there has been a major change in what Russia was when it was the Soviet Union, a head of a Communist government that was seeking to create atheist dictatorships throughout the world. When Russia was the Soviet Union it was thus our primary enemy. One thing Ronald Reagan did is he prioritized: That is our primary enemy. What is the goal? Our goal is we win and they lose--they come down. Now that enemy today is no longer the Soviet Union and now it is Russia who is there, but it is not our primary enemy. Radical Islamic terrorism--we just heard that 3,500 Russians were killed by terrorist activity in the last decade, okay, that is a lot of people--so Islamic terrorism threatens both the United States and Russia. And we might add that we have heard the figure, the largest group of members in Syria of the ISIL and those groups that are fighting there come from Chechnya, Russia. No wonder there is something that tells the Russians they need to pay attention to this. But we should be working with them to try to create a more peaceful situation and defeat the radical Islamic terrorists that threaten both of us and are the basic problem in the Middle East. So I think there are great opportunities for cooperation, and they should not be passed up because of basically what I have seen as hostility, hostility, hostility toward any idea of cooperating with the Russians for the last 10 years. The fight against violent radical Islam is the major threat of our time. As we saw last week in the streets of Manhattan, the threat of radical Islam is pervasive. Radicalized Muslims have slaughtered innocents not just in the Middle East, but in Europe. And yes, as we have just heard, 3,500 in Russia--not counting the airplanes that were shot down over the Sinai Desert filled with Russian tourists. These terrorists have declared war on modern and Western civilization. The future of America and Russia and, yes, Western civilization depends on the defeat of this enemy. We have been in this spot before. We took on that threat to Western civilization. It was called Nazism, the Nazis. How did we defeat the Nazis? Yeah, we actually reached out to Joseph Stalin. Yeah, we defeated Nazism, and then we defeated Communism. And we will defeat radical Islam, but we have got to prioritize our effort and quit this, as I say, unrelenting hostility toward Russia and anybody who is their ally. In the aftermath of the Boston bombing in May 2013--and I will say that you went with me to that hearing, that meeting that we had in Moscow--we met with the Russian Government and with Russian intelligence officials to discuss the threat of terrorism. They actually gave us the documents that they sent. And they also gave us other documents that had they sent--had it been a more of a--I can't do an opening statement? Okay. Anyway---- Mr. Poe. You can do an opening statement. Mr. Rohrabacher. But not longer. Okay. I will finish up. Let me just say, we were given an example of cooperation. Had we been cooperating at a heavy level at that time that we could have been doing we would have probably been able to stop that slaughter at the Boston Marathon. They had further information that would have alerted us to that. That is the type of thing we can do. That is the type of thing that we should be reaching out and trying to cooperate with, rather than simply trying to state what we believe is an analysis of the Russian wrongdoing, which some of this is very debatable. So with that said, thank you, Mr. Poe. Sorry I took so long. Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. The Chair yields to the ranking member, Mr. Meeks from New York. You have 5 minutes for your opening statement. Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Poe, for holding this hearing to provide us with an opportunity to discuss counterterror cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. And I am almost tempted to go off of what I wanted to say in listening to my good friend, the chairman of our subcommittee. Mr. Rohrabacher. We are buddies. Don't worry about it. Mr. Meeks. I am going to try to stay disciplined because I think that the facts as we look at them today and as we found from every--just about all of our intelligence sources that there are some other things that is going on in Russia. When you think about it, it is great that we are having a hearing now, particularly with the expert panel that we have, including people who have worked on U.S. policy to cooperate with Russia in an area of similarly mutual benefit, you would think, on common sense, maybe it makes sense. The timing is also perfect for us to debate the merits of potential cooperation in Syria, as well. So on the surface, yes, you can say you can see Russia as a potential partner in many areas--cultural issues, trade, for example--not only on counterterror efforts. And I am a firm believer, as many know, in multilateral efforts to solve the world's problems. However, it would be naive to promote a policy of cooperation in counterterror efforts without a sober understanding of today's Russia and the history of attempts to cooperate and establish clear goals that incorporate and leverage our allies across the globe. Russia faces a problem of internal extremism related to its history first of brutality suppressing the Chechnyans, Russian citizens, in the 1990s. Journalists who bravely investigated this were killed and the situation remains a cauldron for Moscow. This is where today's Russian leadership honed its counterterror strategy that it uses abroad today. The strategy can be seen on display in its scorched earth policies in Syria and the funneling of fighters from Chechnya to other areas of conflict in the region, including the Ukraine. Given the Kremlin's cooperation with the Iranians in Syria and its support for a larger Shia crescent, where can we find common interests? I don't know. If anything, in Syria we should call it deconfliction and not cooperation. Indeed, while the Obama administration moved forward with its reset policy, counterterror cooperation was on the table. Instead, there was a demonstrable lack of interest in deep cooperation from the Russian side. And I believe that some who will testify today, we will hear that from them, they will talk about that. We learned from the experience, however, about the motives of this cooperation. Any proposed cooperation would give the Kremlin cover for its indiscriminate bombing in Syria, and thereby stroke anti-American feelings in the region. It would put us then on the side of the Shias in Iran. Finally, it would give Russia generous inroads for its intelligence services--not as counterterror experts. So does this mean we stop talking to Moscow or looking for areas to cooperate? No, I don't think so. But let us recognize the unfortunate limitations of today's Kremlin. Let us put Putin's dreams of grand bargains to the side. Let us strive to promote peace by supporting our allies in the Middle East and Europe; let us not fall for the games. I agree. At one time I thought that, as Mr. Rohrabacher talked about, you are no longer the Soviet Union, we can do certain things. Well, clearly, that was not the opinion of Mr. Putin. And he has shown over and over by what has happened in the United States and what has been happening in Europe, and you talk to our European allies, that the areas of cooperation are very limited because what he wants to do is make you think one thing while they do something else. So, I look forward to honestly assessing the potential areas for cooperation with the Kremlin, and I look forward to a robust conversation with our esteemed panel to get a back and forth on this very important issue. And I yield back. Mr. Poe. I thank the gentleman from New York. Without objection, all witnesses' statements will be made part of the record. I ask that each witness limit their presentation to no more than 5 minutes. All members of both subcommittees have copies of your written testimony and had so before this hearing this afternoon. I will introduce each witness and give them time for their statements. Dr. Colin Clarke is a political scientist at the RAND Corporation where he focuses on terrorism, insurgency, and criminal networks. In addition, he is an associate fellow at the International Center for Counterterrorism and lecturer at the Carnegie Mellon University. Dr. Svante Cornell is the director of the Central Asia- Caucasus Institute at the American Foreign Policy Council. He is also the cofounder of the Institute for Security and Development Policy in Stockholm. Mr. Simon Saradzhyan is the founding director of the Russia Matters Project at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He previously worked as a consultant and journalist in Russia for 15 years. Dr. Michael Carpenter is the senior director of the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement and a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council. Dr. Carpenter previously served in the Pentagon as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense with responsibility for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia, Balkans, and conventional arms control. Dr. Clarke, we will start with you. You have 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF COLIN P. CLARKE, PH.D., POLITICAL SCIENTIST, RAND CORPORATION Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Chairman Poe and Ranking Member Keating, Chairman Rohrabacher and Ranking Member Meeks, and distinguished members of the subcommittee for inviting me to testify today. Throughout my testimony I will highlight the following areas. First, Russia's recent history with jihadist terrorism. Second, Russian counterinsurgency and counterterrorism tactics and strategy in the Caucasus. Third, the potential backlash from Russia's foray into Syria and its military campaign there. Fourth, what the future might hold for Russia now that ISIS' caliphate has collapsed. I will conclude with implications that Russia's struggle with jihadist terrorism has for the United States. On recent history, Russia's modern trouble with Islamic militancy dates back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Throughout the former Soviet Union, as well as in areas like Chechnya and others along Russia's southern flank, civil war and conflicts raged, many of which were fueled by militant groups inspired by religion and active throughout the Caucasus in Central Asia. Even beyond the battlefields of the Caucasus, Islamic militants have launched many high profile attacks on Russian soil, including one specifically targeting transportation infrastructure. Militants have also conducted spectacular attacks, meticulously planned operations specifically designed to kill civilians and spread terror throughout the population, such as the Moscow theater hostage crisis in 2002 and the Beslan school siege in 2004. On Russian COIN and counterterrorism. During the first Chechnyan war--from 1994 to 1996--the Russian military followed a scorched earth policy of destroying everything in sight. Chechnya's capital, Grozny, was completely besieged by Russian artillery and indiscriminate bombing. Russian counterinsurgency strategy in the Caucasus has frequently employed zachistkas, or mop-up operations, designed to kill or capture terrorists and their supporters although noncombatants are often caught up in these sweeps. Other tactics have included forced disappearances, collective punishment, and the targeting of suspected insurgents' families, friends, and neighbors. This heavy-handed approach is myopic. It trades longer-term stability for short-term security as the domestic population in large swaths of the Caucasus has been traumatized by extrajudicial killings, torture, and widespread assassinations. In line with Russia's seeming refusal to even attempt to win hearts and minds, the insurgents' social, political, and economic grievances have largely been ignored; practically ensuring that future generations of militants will pick up the mantle of jihad. Russia's focus has been largely kinetic, as the military has relied on its capitation strategy to eliminate successive high-ranking insurgent military commanders over the years. On backlash from Syria--Russia has been one of the primary forces propping up the Assad regime, which has ruthlessly targeted its opponents, most of whom are Sunnis, with barrel bombs and chemical weapons. Russia and Iran are also deepening their political and military alliance as their respective militaries work together to help Assad reclaim pockets of territory from opposition forces. Russian special forces and warplanes serve as a force multiplier for Hezbollah fighters who have bloodied Sunni militants in battle. Moscow's desire to expand Russian influence in the Middle East has pitted it squarely against Sunnis and their interests. For Russia, the demographics are also daunting. There are thousands of Russian citizens fighting with ISIS and another 5,000 to 7,000 Russian-speaking jihadists, making Russia the second-most popular language spoken within ISIS. This means that Sunni jihadist groups have a ready-made native force capable of returning back home to Russia where militants can more easily blend in with local populations. With respect to what the future holds, Russia's deepening involvement in Syria means that Moscow has essentially chosen sides in a sectarian conflict abroad, a strategy that could lead to tragedy at home. A new report by the Soufan Group estimates that Russia is indeed the largest exporter of foreign fighters to the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, with more than 3,200 fighters. One factor that could play a significant role in the scale and scope of the threat facing Russia in the future is the struggle for supremacy between jihadist groups in the Caucasus. A competition for recruits and resources is intensifying between the two dominant jihadist entities, fostering decentralization of the insurgency. In its quest to become more assertive geopolitically by assuming a more aggressive role abroad, Russia has made itself more vulnerable to terrorism at home. Still, Putin could see the threat of Sunni militancy at home as the inevitable tradeoff for restoring Russian hegemony in its former sphere of influence and bringing the country back to what he views as its rightful place as a true global power. Any Russian attempts to compare the Russian campaign against jihadists with America's war on terrorism would be inaccurate. Russia has never been an equal partner in the fight against Islamic extremism. Moreover, Russia has too often exacerbated the global problem through brutal reprisals and an iron fist response to Islamic communities within its own borders. Accordingly, the United States should not view Russia as a viable counterterrorism partner at present. Any efforts to cooperate in this area should be judicious, measured, and treated with the requisite degree of skepticism it deserves. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. [The prepared statement of Mr. Clarke follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ---------- Mr. Poe. Thank you, Dr. Clarke. Dr. Cornell. STATEMENT OF SVANTE CORNELL, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW FOR EURASIA, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS INSTITUTE, AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY COUNCIL Mr. Cornell. Thank you very much, Chairman Poe, Ranking Member Keating, Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Meeks, for the opportunity to testify today. I would like to start by pointing out that I think there has been a bipartisan U.S. policy over the past decade or more to seek Russian cooperation on major international issues. Obviously, this was the case with the Bush administration after 9/11 on Afghanistan, Iran, and on resolving unresolved conflicts in the Caucasus and the Caspian region. The Obama administration's reset policy was obviously predicated on the assumption that Russia could be a partner on all of these issues and on Syria later on. And the Trump administration has been to some extent influenced by thinking that Russia shares interests with the United States in fighting radical Islamic terrorism. As several of the opening statements made clear, and I agree with that, Russian behavior suggests otherwise. I would argue that it suggests that Russia's main aim is to undermine U.S. leadership in the world, and when insurgents and terrorists contribute to this goal in one way or another, Russia has no problem with coordinating with them, support them, and of course, manipulate them. Chairman Poe mentioned the conflict in Ukraine, and I think going further it is clear that a central instrument in Russian policy in the whole post-Soviet space has been the manipulation and sometimes creation of so-called frozen conflicts. We have seen this in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and lately Ukraine. The first three cases, this was dating back to the early 1990s. In Ukraine these conflicts were basically manufactured out of thin air. There were no preexisting conflicts that Russia interfered in--they created them to undermine the statehood of Ukraine. Now, what do all the countries that are suffering from this problem have in common? They all are trying to escape from the Russian sphere of influence and looking to the United States for leadership in the world. The countries that have accepted the Russian sphere of influence, such as Belarus, such as Armenia, don't have a problem on their own territory with unresolved conflicts. More vexing than this issue in Russia's neighborhood is Russia's attitude to Islamic terrorism. I would point out that Russia's support for insurgency extends directly to anti- American actors, including Islamic extremism. Chairman Poe mentioned that in Afghanistan since 2015, we have reports of Russian support for the Taliban. Back then, a Russian official said that Russian interests objectively coincide with those of the Taliban. This Russian official claimed that the major purpose of that was opposing ISIS. However, a senior Taliban official who was interviewed at the time said that Russia and the Taliban had been in contact since 2007, long before ISIS even existed, and that the main cause for that was the existence of the main enemy, the United States--and that Russia--also like the Taliban, wanted the United States out of Afghanistan. Now, this obviously flies in the face of the notion that Russia has been a supporter in the U.S. efforts, war efforts in Afghanistan, because just while President Obama was lauding Russia for supporting a transportation network through Russia and Central Asia known as the Northern Distribution Network, Russia was already ramping up its support for the Taliban. As we know now, and as multiple U.S. high military officials have testified, this now includes arms deliveries and other types of support. Ranking Member Meeks and the previous speaker mentioned Chechnya, and indeed the insurgency against Russian rule there in the 1990s was mainly a nationalist and a secular insurgency. The Chechnyan nationalists were viewed as quite a legitimate actor by many in the West, including on Capitol Hill, but gradually--after the 1994 to 1996 war--there was a radical Islamic component that emerged within Chechnya and within the North Caucasus. Now, you would think that Russia would target this component rather than the nationalists and secularists with whom you would actually be able to negotiate, but in fact the opposite was true. As I detail in my written testimony, Russia actively worked to destroy particularly the nationalist and secular forces in the insurgency, and, in fact, bolstered directly and mainly indirectly, the Islamic extremist groups, some of which Russia had infiltrated and succeeded in manipulating. These are, by the way, some of the forces that are now in Syria. And the purpose--and this becomes very relevant in the Syrian context--was basically to force everybody, ordinary Chechnyans, outsiders, including the United States, to confront a binary choice. Either you support Russia's own loyal Chechnyan administration or you are left with the radical Islamic terrorists and there is nothing in between. Now, going to Syria, I mentioned Chechnya in particular because this is exactly the blueprint that Russia has presented to the world by its support for the Assad regime. By focusing its energies on destroying the moderate U.S.-supported parts of the insurgency that targeted Assad they leave ordinary Syrians and the rest of the world with, again, the same binary choice, either oppose Assad or you are left with ISIS. Now, as I close, I would just like to reflect on why Russia is following this policy. Now, Russia is ruled by a regime that is dominated not by the national interests, but by the regime interests of Mr. Putin and his allies, and the key regime interest is to create an international environment that is conducive to maintaining that system of government in Russia. For this purpose, Western democracies, especially the United States, are a threat--not a military threat--but a threat to the survival of the Russian regime because of the attraction of the democratic system of government. And, therefore, there is an underlying aim of all of Russian policy to undermine U.S. leadership in the world and to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. democracy. That is why Russian media depicts the West as morally decadent and chaotic. That is why Russia interferes in U.S. elections. And that is not about supporting one candidate or another, it is about generating chaos and crippling the political system of this country. And by definition, by the way, this means that if Russia supports one candidate prior to an election, the moment that that candidate wins, that is a candidate that Russia will now be undermining. And that is, by the way, why Russian trolls that had worked against Hillary Clinton's campaign shifted tack as soon as President Trump won the election and immediately began questioning the legitimacy of President Trump's election. So to end, I would say that Russia actually holds a fairly weak hand in international affairs. They have a very vulnerable economy and a very vulnerable political system. They are playing, if you will, a very bad hand very well. We, on the other hand, have a much stronger hand in international affairs, but we are not playing it as well as the Russians do--and I think it is time for the U.S.--if you will, to call the bluff that is Russia's foreign policy. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cornell follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ---------- Mr. Poe. Thank you, Dr. Cornell. The Chair recognizes Mr. Saradzhyan for his 5-minute opening statement. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF MR. SIMON SARADZHYAN, DIRECTOR OF THE RUSSIA MATTERS PROJECT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF U.S.-RUSSIA INITIATIVE TO PREVENT NUCLEAR TERRORISM, BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL Mr. Saradzhyan. Thank you, distinguished members of the committee, for inviting me to give my testimony, which reflects my personal views only, rather than the views of the organizations I work for. I have been asked to answer five questions. The first one is, can Russia be an effective counterterrorism partner for the United States? In my view, yes, Russia can be an effective counterterrorism partner for the United States in theory. Why I think so--as some of you have mentioned, the U.S. and Russia do share common interests in reducing the threat posed by Islamist militant nonstate actors that seek to build caliphates, or a global caliphate, in the Middle East and in parts of the post-Soviet neighborhood. The U.S. and Russia also share a vital national interest in preventing any nonstate actors, including these Islamist groups, from acquiring nuclear weapons. And we know that both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State have displayed practical interest in getting those nuclear weapons. At the same time, as we know, the events, the conflict in Ukraine, the conflict in Syria, Russia's alleged meddling in the U.S. elections, have imposed constraints on realizing the potential for this cooperation. Therefore, I am skeptical that in the short-to-medium future the two countries would act on their joint common interests in countering such groups. The second question I have been asked, what is actually Russia's counterterrorism strategy? I would say Russia's counterterrorism strategy employs both forceful and nonforceful elements. The forceful elements are best displayed in Russia's North Caucasus, from which more than 80 percent of attacks against targets in Russia have originated, according to the global database on terrorism maintained by the University of Maryland. At the same time, we have seen in the past few years that the threat of militant Islamism has proliferated to some of the other regions of Russia, including Volga region, the Urals, and even Siberia. So Russia's counterterrorism approach, the forceful component, has been focused on removing the leadership of the groups operating in these regions and also neutralizing members of these groups. In the process of doing so, Russian law enforcement officials have been accused of abuses, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and torture. In my view, and in the view of scholars who study Russia's North Caucasus, these are some of the root causes that fuel insurgency and terrorism in Russia. At the same time, there is a nonforceful component, and that has been displayed in the North Caucasus, too, where Russian authorities have sought to reduce at least some of the disengagement costs for the terrorists and rebels who have not committed grave offenses. However, these efforts fall short of addressing all the root causes behind an insurgency. The same can be said about Russia's counterterrorism strategy abroad, mainly in Syria, where it is mostly a military operation, but where some special forces operate against certain leaders of the insurgency. But here, the accent on forceful methods has been much more emphasized, and, again, NGOs have accused Russian aircraft of indiscriminate bombing that again fuels grievances and can contribute to the rise of insurgency. The third question I have been asked to answer was, what is Russia's military engagement in the Middle East? Again, it is mostly focused on Syria. And here I would say Russia's vital interest in Syria is not Assad, per se, but Syria has been Russia's ally for many years. So preserving Syria as an ally is an important interest. At the same time, Russia also wants to make sure that Syria does not become a haven for terrorist groups that can attack Russia, given the fact that there are about 5,000 nationals of Russia and about 4,000 nationals of Central Asia in the ranks of terrorism and insurgency groups in Iraq and Syria, according to Russia's own estimate. So neutralizing these individuals and making sure they do not pose a threat to Russia is a vital interest of Russia. The fourth question I have been asked to answer is, what are the current terrorist threats within Russia? As I have said, these are posed by Islamist groups, but also there is a smaller number of threats posed by individual avengers who use terrorist methods, and also by ethnic Russian ultranationalists who have used terrorist methods to attack foreigners, but also some of Russia's own government officials, including judges. We have seen the surge in the number of terrorist attacks in Russia in 2010. Since then it has been declining. And finally, the final question I have been asked to answer is: How do Russian counterterrorism and military operations impact the terror threat worldwide? I would say the impact in the North Caucasus is of dual nature. On one hand, the threat of terrorism is being reduced because leaders have been taken out and members of an insurgency have been arrested. But on the other hand, the abuses I have described fuel some of the grievances and recruit fertile ground for recruitment of new members into existing insurgency networks. The same can be said about Russia's operations abroad. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Saradzhyan follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ---------- Mr. Poe. Dr. Carpenter, your opening statement. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CARPENTER, PH.D., NONRESIDENT SENIOR FELLOW, DINU PATRICIU EURASIA CENTER, ATLANTIC COUNCIL, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF THE BIDEN CENTER FOR DIPLOMACY AND GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Carpenter. Chairman Poe, Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Keating, and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. President Putin and other Russian officials have long proposed that Russia and the United States should work more closely together on counterterrorism. President Trump has also said that we should work with Russia on CT. And at first glance it might seem natural that two nations that have suffered from terrorist attacks should collaborate more closely on fighting terrorism. But this would be a grave mistake that damages our national security interests and runs contrary to our values. The Kremlin is, as has been said, a state sponsor of groups that use terrorist tactics against civilians. It is attacking the foundations of our democratic institutions and fueling conflicts from Syria to Afghanistan that contribute directly to radicalization and extremism. In Ukraine, for example, the Kremlin directly contributed the missiles, the hardware, the training that resulted in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, killing all 298 people on board. The Ukrainian intelligence services have also accused the Russian FSB of standing behind bombings of civilians in 2014 and 2015, as well as more recent vehicle- borne bomb attacks in the capital city of Kiev. In Syria, the Kremlin's number one goal has been to prop up the murderous Assad regime, together with its allies, Lebanese Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Due to the involvement of its forces on the ground and in the air, Russia bears direct responsibility for the annihilation of the city of Aleppo, where civilian areas were indiscriminately bombed together with humanitarian relief convoys. Let's not fool ourselves. Partnering with Russia in Syria would be the equivalent of partnering with Hezbollah or Iran. Indeed, Russia's military intervention in Syria has allowed its ally, Iran, to gain significant influence across the region, stretching from southern Iraq to southern Syria to Lebanon. In Afghanistan, as has also been mentioned, Russia provides weapons to the Taliban, where these arms are likely used against U.S. CT forces and NATO-trained Afghan national forces. The Kremlin has taken this decision consciously, both to increase its influence in the region and to deliberately weaken the NATO Resolute Support mission. Inside Russia itself, Russia's security forces are responsible for killings, torture, physical abuse, and politically motivated abductions. The Kremlin's strategy is not geared toward winning hearts and minds. Instead, its singular focus is on the physical liquidation of insurgents. Security forces in Russia, whether Federal or local, apply the principle of collective retribution against suspected militants. Russian CT operations also pay little regard for the possibility of civilian casualties among noncombatants. Finally, Russian authorities have used the pretext of fighting extremism to crack down on Russia's democratic political opposition and other dissidents. In the United States, Russia has tried to fan the flames of anti-Muslim xenophobia. Fake Russian accounts on Facebook and Twitter spread false allegations of crimes committed by Muslim migrants and try to stoke discord and hate in the very districts where your constituents live. This has been happening for years. In 2015, the Russian- linked hacking group reportedly posed as an Islamic State front to mount a cyber attack on a French television network. We should also remember that we have tried to partner with Russia on CT issues in the recent past. The results of these efforts indicate Russia is more interested in collecting intelligence on us than sharing information on terrorist threats. Under a different Kremlin leadership it might make sense to work with Russia on CT operations or countering violent extremism. But today, the Putin regime's geopolitical ambitions and CT strategy are directly antithetical to U.S. national security, contribute directly to the radicalization of extremist groups, and are contrary to our basic values. Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Carpenter follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ---------- Mr. Poe. Thank you, Dr. Carpenter. And we understand that you have to leave at some time after 3 o'clock. Go ahead and excuse yourself. No one will arrest you on your way out the door. Mr. Carpenter. Chairman, I have to leave at 3:25. Mr. Poe. Alright, 3:25. We will watch the clock. I will recognize myself for some questions, and then we will have the other members. As you can see, there is a wide range of views among our two subcommittees on this issue. I want to talk specifically about the question at hand, Russia's involvement in terrorist activities. I would like to compare, if possible, Iran, which is labeled a state sponsor of terror--the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world is Iran--with some of the actions of the Russians. Dr. Carpenter, you mentioned the Malaysian plane that was shot down. Did the Russians shoot that down? Mr. Carpenter. Chairman, the Russians provided the system, the hardware, the missiles to infiltrate that system from Russia into Ukraine. We do not know who the triggerman was, but in all likelihood that person was trained in Russia by Russian special forces. Mr. Poe. Alright. Does Russia, Dr. Cornell, supply arms and assistance to Hezbollah, a terrorist organization? Mr. Cornell. Sir, I don't have any more information on that than what I read in the papers. I read that that is the case. I don't have anything additional--I would call Russia the number one state manipulator of terrorism, if that is helpful. Mr. Poe. That is a new term that we may have to deal with. Do any of the other three of you wish to comment on whether Russia does or does not supply any materials to Hezbollah, a terrorist group? Dr. Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter. So, Chairman, I can't speak directly to whether they contribute weapons or material. However, it is clear that Russian special forces on the ground in Syria coordinate their actions with their allies, their principal allies being Assad regime forces, Hezbollah forces, and the Quds Force from Iran. Mr. Poe. So they work with them. They may not supply material support, but they work on the same side, so to speak, in supporting the Assad regime. Mr. Carpenter. Sir, they coordinate both tactical and strategic missions. Mr. Poe. Is the elimination of journalists, political opponents--I alluded to 14 of them in my opening statement that were suddenly disappeared by so-called accidents in the United Kingdom--was that inspired or supported or done by the Russian Government? Do any of you want to comment on that? Dr. Carpenter again. Mr. Carpenter. So, Chairman, we know that the U.K. Government has fingered two Russians, Andrei Lugovoi and his partner, in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko with polonium, and they have provided a great deal of information about how that was done specifically. And I think I will leave it at that. Mr. Poe. Would any of you consider cyber attacks by one nation, specifically Russia, into the United States, would you consider that terrorism, an act of war, or something else? Dr. Cornell. Mr. Cornell. Mr. Chairman, I think, depending on what that cyber attack does, it could be any of the above. I think the important part to understand about Russia is that the advantage they have, in spite of the weakness in terms of economic power and the vulnerability of their political system, is that they have a highly hierarchical power vertical, as Mr. Putin likes to call it, that has a whole different set of instruments, a toolbox, that they can choose from. They can use direct military attacks on their neighbors, as in the cases of Ukraine and Georgia. They can choose to use cyber attacks, subversion, support or manipulation of insurgency. All of these are available to Mr. Putin through the press of a button. We are not organized to respond to that type of behavior from a state like Russia, and I think that is really where the problem is. Mr. Poe. Any of the rest of you want to comment on that? Dr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke. Not specifically on cyber, but to get back to one of your earlier points about the Russians and Lebanese Hezbollah. I think if Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, Russia is a sponsor of a state sponsor of terrorism by sponsoring the Iranian regime and working closely to deconflict with Lebanese Hezbollah on the ground. Mr. Poe. State sponsor of a sponsor of terrorism. Alright. Okay. Let me ask you one other question, the four of you, just yes or no. Should the United States work with Russia in trying to combat international terrorism? Dr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke. No. Mr. Poe. Dr. Cornell. Mr. Cornell. Not under the current regime in Russia, sir. Mr. Poe. Not under Putin. Dr. Saradzhyan. Mr. Saradzhyan. In my view, if there is a credible, serious threat to the United States posed by terrorist groups, then the answer should be yes. Mr. Poe. Dr. Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter. We should not cooperate with Russia. We should communicate with them, but under no circumstances should we cooperate. Mr. Poe. Okay. Thank you. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since Dr. Carpenter is leaving, I am intrigued on one thing. I traveled to Sochi prior to the beginning of the Winter Olympics to learn more. It was a two-person codel. Frankly, we had some difficulty getting in, but we made it in there. And both Members of Congress were very surprised when we got there. We were there to look at the cooperation that exists and how we could learn from that with a major event. When we got there it was clear that there was cooperation with almost every other country working together and with our FBI and other intelligence people that were there, but it was a total wall with Russia, which I found odd because that is their sovereign area and we have a vested interest, I think, in pooling those resources. So, Dr. Carpenter, you gave me maybe an answer as to at least why that was the case. I thought it was just one of sovereignty and pride, but you have a different theory in part. So I am very intrigued. Could you expound on that? Mr. Carpenter. So, Ranking Member Keating, I also traveled to Sochi as part of an international set of security, diplomatic, and intelligence officials to discuss preparations for security arrangements in advance of the games. It was clear then that the Russians were not willing to divulge a great deal of information about the preparations that were underway, other than that they were creating a massive perimeter around the Olympic facilities, and they intended to---- Mr. Keating. The ring of steel, right? Mr. Carpenter. The ring of steel, as it was called, correct, sir. But at the time our chief interlocutor on the Russian side was the top FSB general responsible for counterintelligence, not counterterrorism, Mr. Syromolotov, and it was clear from the engagements that we had at the time that their primary concern was counterintelligence and not sharing information on terrorist threats. Later, subsequently, when I was NSC director for Russia, we engaged in bilateral conversations with the Russian Security Council on Sochi, which I participated in, and I have to say the tone of those conversations was very cordial. The mood was okay. But we did not receive any significant information from the Russians in the leadup to the games, despite having an enormous interest in terms of being the largest sponsor with the largest number of athletes and the largest number of sportsmen contributing to the games. Mr. Keating. Thank you. I think it was Dr. Cornell. If it wasn't, I will let anyone jump in. But I was intrigued because you can look at it from the other side and say, you know, why wouldn't it be in Russia's interest to cooperate with us? And I think it was Dr. Cornell who said in your opening remarks that they are doing it because they have a unique regime and they want to protect that regime. If it wasn't Dr. Cornell, please anyone who wants to answer this. But what did you mean by preservation of their unique regime and why this is the way they conduct themselves in terms of counterterrorism and other actions to preserve that uniqueness? Mr. Cornell. Ranking Member Keating, what I referred to was specifically and primarily Russia's behavior toward its neighbors. It was very much predicated on an answering to the so-called color revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kurdistan from 2003 to 2005, which the Russian Government saw as a mortal threat to its own form of government. Because if those neighboring states would be able to develop into successful democracies, especially if Ukraine, which shares linguistic and cultural ties with Russia, if Ukrainians would be able to live in a state that was not authoritarian, not corrupt, not kleptocratic--why should the Russian population itself tolerate continuing to live under those circumstances. And therefore what had previously been mainly a geopolitical, board game type Realpolitik relationship with the West became very ideological. For Russia after that, undermining the very notion of democracy, popular support for democracy, both among its neighbors, among the Russian public itself, and even in the West, became an aim of the regime, because by discrediting democracy, and especially democratic uprisings and revolutions, and making the West appear to be chaotic and decadent, that bolstered support domestically for the Russian regime itself. That is mainly when I referred to. But part of that is also undermining the leadership of the United States in the world, including--and that is one of the main reasons why Russia moved to Syria, not because--partly because Syria is important to Russia, but also because they saw a vacuum that enabled them---- Mr. Keating. If I could interrupt for 2 seconds, I just have one more question. Because I think it is maybe more than ideological. How much is Putin worth? How much would you estimate, any of you? Mr. Cornell. I have heard figures of $40 billion, but that was a long time ago. Mr. Keating. Anyone else want to venture a guess? Mr. Carpenter. So, Ranking Member Keating, I can't hazard a guess because Putin is the beneficial owner through a variety of shell corporations and accounts. Other people hold money for him. But it is in the billions of dollars, likely the tens of billions of dollars. Mr. Keating. I would just suggest that maybe it is a little bit more than ideological. And I yield back. Mr. Poe. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mast. Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. I am of the mind that I don't believe that Russian intervention in Syria was by any means a counterterrorism objective. I think it was certainly a counterinsurgency objective against those that would have stood against Assad. I think in doing that you could say that they stepped in it. I think that would be a good way to put it. I think the terrorist activities that have resulted in Russia are proof of that. There have been calls for jihad, obviously by ISIS, by al-Nusrah. There are estimates of 5,000 to 7,000 Russians that are over there fighting on behalf of the Islamic State. And that brings me to my first question. Do you think that Russia is going to allow those thousands of fighters back into Russia? What is your speculation or take on that piece of it? By all means, sir. Mr. Clarke. Absolutely not. I mean, I think that was part and parcel of the strategy in the leadup to Syria, was to usher these individuals out and to encourage them to go to Syria, full well knowing that the Russian Air Force would then bomb them from the skies and then put up a fairly robust border security forest to prevent anyone from returning home, although that does not prevent the radicalization of individuals who were prevented from leaving, never left in the first place. Mr. Mast. That kind of creates a very good segue for my followup question. It has been said within Russian counterterrorism efforts that the family is the thread that needs to be pulled to unravel a terror group. Could any of you unpack that a little bit in terms of whether that has been a successful policy within the borders of Russia for Vladimir Putin? Mr. Carpenter. So I can start, I think Dr. Clarke has also written and spoken about this. But collective retribution is one of the policies that especially local security forces use in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan, and the other North Caucasus Federal Republics. It is singularly ineffective. Some analysts will tell you that it is brutal but effective in the short run, but over the long run clearly it is myopic and leads to radicalization of entire communities who feel that the regime is bearing done upon them. But it is common for family members of insurgents or would-be militants to be kidnapped, to be tortured, to be interrogated, held, sometimes even killed. Mr. Mast. Any further? Please, by all means. Mr. Saradzhyan. I would like to point out that according to Russia's independent Meduza newsline outlet, whose journalists have gone and interviewed people in the North Caucasus, Ingushetia has set up, one of the republics in the North Caucasus, has set up a commission to try to accommodate some of the people who tried to return from Syria to Russia. But I would be very surprised if a large number of individuals would use that channel because they are still liable according to the Russian law and they would be jailed if tried and convicted for participation in illegal formations. There has also been an effort to bring in wives and children of the killed rebels, and that has been done in the North Caucasus, and I think the numbers is in dozens. But again, 5,000 people fighting and only dozens of cases being successfully returned to Russia. Thank you. Mr. Clarke. Sir, I can speak to some of the empirical evidence that I have come across in my own research on this topic. I was one of the coauthors at RAND of a study on counterinsurgency looking at every single insurgency since the end of World War II to 2009. We roundly found that what we call the ``crush them'' approach, a draconian, authoritarian approach to counterinsurgency, was indeed counterproductive in the long term. Mr. Mast. Very good. I have one more question and this is open to any one of you. All of you said pretty much unanimously that we should not cooperate with Russia. That is a very ambiguous statement when we are talking about counterterrorism. So please, if any of you could give me some examples of normal counterterrorism cooperation that would exist between nations that you believe we should not undertake. Give me some concrete examples of what you wouldn't like to see happen in terms of counterterrorism cooperation, that being the word that you all used. Mr. Carpenter. Perhaps I can start again and I will have to leave after this. But in terms of counterterrorism cooperation, I would not want the U.S. Government to be sharing any information that could compromise sources or methods. I would not want the U.S. Government to share any information with the Russian Government that could be used against dissidents inside Russia. And certainly, I would not want the U.S. military to be engaging in any sort of combat missions or operations or sharing of information on targets in Syria or any other military battlefield, because that would essentially make the U.S. complicit in any civilian casualties that result from Russia's bombing campaign, as well as it would tie us to the toxic axis that Russia has formed with Hezbollah and Iran that we have spoken about earlier. Mr. Mast. My time has expired. If the chairman wishes to give you all time to answer, by all means, but I thank you for your responses. Mr. Poe. I thank the gentleman from Florida. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Meeks. Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you have got to go, Dr. Carpenter, and I was going to ask a very similar question as Mr. Mast, and I guess you just answered it. Because I wanted to know specifically what U.S. interests that cooperation would undermine. And I think basically you just said that there are several intelligence pieces that Mr. Putin. So just in case, is there anything that you wanted to add to that before you leave? Mr. Carpenter. Well, I think the only other thing I would say is that we all have to remember that Russia right now is engaged in an ongoing attack against our democratic institutions. Russia sees the United States as its chief geopolitical adversary for some of the reasons that my friend Svante has outlined, namely that it sees the United States and the West, Western democracies, as the ones who are undermining its kleptocratic and authoritarian regime. So, to protect its wealth and power it is striking out against the United States and other countries. And for us to be engaged in a cooperative effort at the very same time that Russia is attacking our institutions and seeking to gain advantage over the United States and our military just doesn't make sense to me. Mr. Meeks. You have answered. I am going to ask this to all of the panelists. I think President Trump has recently suggested that cooperation with Russia on counterterrorism efforts should lead to sanctions relief on Ukraine. Now, I have my own opinion, but let me just ask you for your opinion. Should that lead to sanctions relief? Should a counterterrorism agreement with Russia lead to sanctions relief with Ukraine? Mr. Clarke. I am sure Moscow would love that and that would be the intended purpose of any kind of proposed cooperation. But I think as you said, Ranking Member Meeks, in your own opening statement, Russian self-interest will occasionally intersect with ours and it is nothing more beyond that. Mr. Cornell. If I may add, Ranking Member Meeks, I think this is exactly the mistake that the Obama administration did after Russia invaded Georgia following years of using insurgents to undermine the sovereignty of that country. As you know, only months after that any sanctions that had been imposed on Russia by the U.S. and Europe were tabled and the reset policy was started which sent a signal to Russia that: We can do whatever we want to, the West will back off, and will cooperate with us again. And I think that is exactly the signal that we would send by doing, and by doing so, we would set ourselves up for even larger troubles with Russia in the future. The only way to get Russia to be a constructive partner is to show them what is acceptable behavior and what it not. Once they have understood that, I am all for cooperation. Mr. Meeks. Dr. Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter. I generally agree with that statement. As someone who was working on Georgia policy at the time though, I would simply add that the Obama administration took office in late January and the Bush administration made absolutely no effort to put sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Georgia, nor impose any other lasting consequences, which was a mistake. Mr. Meeks. Thank you. Let me go back. Dr. Cornell, real quick. I think, if I am not mistaken, you were a witness at a hearing that we had on Azerbaijan a few years ago. And you recently wrote about how the United States inadvertently promotes extremism, right, in the name of religious freedom, if I am not correct. Mr. Cornell. Yes, sir. Mr. Meeks. Which goes to show how blanket policies can be dangerous in the local politics. What missed opportunities are there in Central Asia for cooperation with Russia, in your opinion? Mr. Cornell. Ranking Member Meeks, I think there are enormous opportunities for cooperation in Central Asia with the governments and states of Central Asia. They would like to cooperate with us directly. They don't need any intermediaries. With Russia, we know that one of the reasons why Russia in 2010 supported the ouster of the government of Kyrgyzstan was because that government refused to eject the United States military base that was existing in that country. That triggered the move by Russia against that government, led to a coup d'etat, which was followed by large-scale ethnic unrest in the south of that country. So, subsequently, the U.S. military base in Kurdistan was closed. I think that tells you everything you need to know about how Russia would view any form of cooperation with the United States in Central Asia. However, as I said, these are countries that are attempting, in spite of many domestic flaws in terms of human rights, freedoms, and so on, to build secular states in the Muslim world. We have not acknowledged that. That was the subject of the article that you referred to that I cowrote with two colleagues. We have tended to hector them about not respecting religious freedom without understanding that they are trying to maintain secular societies, secular systems of education and law. And that is something where we can cooperate with them. Mr. Meeks. Thank you. I think I am out of time, so I will yield back. Mr. Poe. The Chair recognizes Chairman Rohrabacher for his questions. Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There is a lot of ground to cover and I am the only over here trying to present an alternative right now. But let me just note that after 9/11 I think that we could say that there is no other country in the world that did more to help cooperate and had a major influence on what we did to defeat the Taliban and kick Saddam Hussein out. They made their bases available to us, because we came in from the north, instead of through Pakistan. And the reason we didn't go through Pakistan, because Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were the ones who invented the Taliban, who we were at that point going to war with because they had slaughtered 3,000 Americans, their Taliban. And also the Saudis, who almost all of the hijackers were Saudis. Okay? But Russia stepped up. That doesn't count, does it? No, we are good friends with the Saudis and the Paks. Let me just get in a couple of things. I am sorry the gentleman had to leave. I don't know if he--it sounded like he was or was not suggesting that the Russians were culpable in the shooting down of that aircraft. But let's just note that we support a lot of groups all over the world. Do we have a double standard here? Is that what it is all about, if the Russians can do something, but that doesn't apply to the United States when we support people and they do some bad things with the weapons that we give them? I think that if I was a Russian listening to this, that is what I would come to the conclusion of: Oh, the Americans have this double standard. I am going to ask one question, I am sorry again, very quickly. Can any of you tell me why the Russians gave $150 million to the Clinton Foundation when Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State? Can anybody tell me on the witness stand? Okay. Well, that shouldn't be out of the equation. When we are trying to discuss what Russia does, we know that that happened, even though there seems to be an effort to try to cover that up and now don't pay attention to it. Assad. Is Assad demonstrably different than any number of five or six other dictatorships in the Middle East? Is he capable more, if any of those people had uprisings in their country, is he capable, is he doing more than what they would do to destroy the uprising? Mr. Clarke. Chairman Rohrabacher, I would note that Assad has used chemical weapons twice against his own population, and that seems to be more than anyone else has done in the region. Mr. Rohrabacher. How many people were killed in that? So we are talking about---- Mr. Clarke. How many---- Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, using chemical weapons is bad. Using a rocket bomb that kills 10 times as many people is bad as well. And the bottom line is, I have heard this chemical, biological. Yes, I am against chemical biological weapons. But what is important here is the number of people who are being--civilians especially--who are being killed to intimidate them. And the bottom line is Assad is a bad guy. So are a bunch of regimes that we support there. And let us also suggest this, that Assad has had a chance to be a force for peace with Israel all of these decades, and that should be taken into consideration when we judge Assad. And also let us note about Russian support for Assad, the Russians tried to convince us: Look, we can make a deal with Qadhafi, it will settle things down, it is better than what will happen if Qadhafi is overthrown. The same thing with Saddam Hussein. Now they are trying to tell us that is true with Assad. What are the chances? Think about, what are the chances, Assad is overthrown, that you get a radical Islamic government that hates us and is willing to support terrorism? The chances are very high. And when we discuss these things, those things should be in our calculation as to what our policies should be and they don't seem to be. What we seem to be talking about is everybody's--the faults of anybody who is associated with Russia. Let's note that we have some of those same faults and we shouldn't have a double standard. And I noticed the last time, Mr. Chairman, that we had this whole bombing attack, I remember there was 84 civilians that were killed in that hospital and nobody would justify that. But I would have to suggest that since we invaded and tried to get out of Saddam Hussein, and even right now in our efforts to try to overcome the radicals and Assad's forces, many, many thousands of people, civilians, have lost their lives to American bombs. Not intentionally that we wanted to single them out, but that that was the byproduct of that. And I would just suggest that if we want to have peace in this world, especially with radical Islam the way it is, we better work and not have a double standard and try to work with people, as we needed to when we defeated Hitler. And otherwise Hitler would not have been destroyed, and Stalin was really was an awful person. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Poe. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After those 5 minutes I have to collect my thoughts. They are kind of scrambled. So, first of all, I would like to associate myself with the comments of the chairman and the ranking member. I certainly agree with you 100 percent. I grew up in Cuba. I left in 1962. I think I know a little bit about Communism. And I remember very clearly when they started the indoctrination process, when they started trying to inculcate into your mind that the things in the world that are wrong were wrong because of the United States, that we were the evil of the world, that we needed to destroy the United States of America. Fortunately, I was taken out of that situation and brought to this country. And I don't know anywhere in this world where the Russians have a footprint that is better off today than before. They create nothing but chaos, they create nothing but destruction, because that is how they thrive. Because if you give those countries the ability to stop and think what Russia stands for--what that government stands for-- and I am not saying the Russian people are bad, but that government, people will never accept that. So, unfortunately, you know, this is such a great country that we have my colleague from California different from me, and he will go home and he will have coffee and everything else. He will have the Kool-Aid, too, regarding Russia. But I just don't know anywhere in the world where they are better off when the Russians are in. I remember we came close to nuclear war when they tried to put nuclear weapons 90 miles away from here. We had a visit, we had a defector here the other day from Korea, and he stated that the reason North Korea has developed such rapid nuclear weapons is because the Russians have helped them develop it. Now, is that someone we can work with? I mean really, my thoughts are still scrambled. So I really don't have any questions, Chairman, because I am kind of, you know, I am, like, flabbergasted that somebody can think of Russia and think so much of it. If I were in Russia, Dana, I would hire you. I would hire you as a lobbyist here in this country. Mr. Rohrabacher. You mean like they did with Hillary? Mr. Sires. That is right, Hillary and you. Mr. Wilson. It was Bill that got the money. Mr. Sires. Look, as I look at this and I see what is going on now in the Western Hemisphere where the Russians are trying to influence and trying to damage any kind of a system that you have there, they are arming Nicaragua in the Western Hemisphere, they are propping up a regime in Venezuela that is the destruction of Venezuela. I mean, as you look, obviously, they just opened up the hearing in Cuba, they had a whole big hearing to eavesdrop on Americans' communication, it is all open now. So, I just can't buy the fact that we can somehow work with this government. I would not trust any information that we get from Russia if we were ever working together. And when you talk about Putin, he is KGB years ago and he is KGB now. And the KGB's mission was to destroy this country, and we saw what they did in this election. And we are still feeling the effects of this election where we have our groups at each other's throats because of what Russia did in this country by hacking all these different places. So, Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing. And I yield back the rest of my time. Mr. Wilson [presiding]. Thank you, Congressman Sires. And we appreciate so much your Cuban American heritage and your strength on behalf of freedom in Cuba. Chairman Poe has assigned myself for the balance of the hearing. He had an additional meeting that he would be attending. At this time I will defer to myself for questions, Congressman Joe Wilson from South Carolina. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was correctly identified by Ronald Reagan as the Evil Empire, I was so hopeful for a new modern Russia participating in Europe, participating in Asia, positively participating around the world. And I have visited Russia a number of times. It is always very impressive to me, the wonderful people, the positive people who I met, the extraordinary Russian culture, the art, the music, the literature, the architecture. But, sadly, with the Putin regime there has been a return to an authoritarian status, which I think is so disappointing for what should be such a positive country. Russia has taken strong action against terrorism domestically, as it is a fertile field for radical Islamic terrorists, as we all, sadly, saw with the massacre at the school in Beslan. Also, they have targeted ISIS and other groups that have infringed on them in their allies. But, sadly, in other cases they have supported Iranian-backed militia through their support of the Assad regime in Syria. In any of your opinions, does Russia actually have a strong, coherent antiterrorism policy or do they have a policy of convenience? And by that, they seem to support destablizing efforts of terrorism when the action supports a short-term strategic goal of Russia and ignore the long-term effects of supporting terrorist organizations which one day would actually come back to kill Russian citizens. And we can begin with Dr. Clarke or whoever would like to proceed. Mr. Cornell. I would like just to bring up one example, sir, which is a man by the name of Shamil Basayev. This was Russia's terrorist number one for a number of years until he died in 2006. This is a person that Russia trained to fight in the insurgency against Georgia and Abkhazia in 1991 to 1992. After a few years, he came back and became the leader of the jihadi resistance in Chechnya, which shows an exact example of what you are talking about, namely, how Russia themselves created their owns Frankensteins, if you will, that came to hit back against Russia. That is because their policy is shortsighted and tactical in nature rather than long term and strategic. Mr. Wilson. Dr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Congressman. I would add to that, as I have alluded to in my written testimony, that several prominent individuals from the former Soviet Union, including an individual known colloquially as Omar the Chechen, rose to fairly high ranks within the Islamic State. It kind of shows the prominence with which certain Russians have attained within ISIS. And so, that would be one of my main concerns, you know, were I Russia, for kind of blowback in the aftermath of the collapse of the caliphate. Mr. Saradzhyan. I would like to point out that this particular individual, if you are referring to the minister of war, he was actually a native of Georgia, ethnic Chechen, he wasn't Russian national or ethic Russian. In general, I would like to point out that terrorism is a strategy. I condemn that strategy because it targets innocent people, but whether a country actively pursues terrorists, unfortunately, it many times depends on what national interests are. Okay? But if you look at the national interests of the U.S. and Russia, I would still argue that it is in the vital interest of both countries to prevent innocent people being killed by terrorists. So in that sense, whenever lives of innocent people are at state, I would suggest cooperation with Russia, with any other country for that matter, that can prevent killing of innocent people. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. Thank you each. Russia's aggression into the Ukraine--and it should be remembered that 10,000 people have died due to that aggression--and support for pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine, of the Republic of Georgia--I just returned from Tbilisi. What an extraordinary country, and how brave the people are of the Republic of Georgia and what great allies they are of the United States. Also, there has been destabilization in Moldova. And would you view their direct support for government separatists as supporting terrorism and another example of antiterrorist policy of convenience? In addition, should the United States consider these groups terrorist organizations? I would like your input on that. Mr. Cornell. So definitely in Ukraine we see examples of terrorist tactics being used. And the other conflicts we would have to go back to events in the early 1990s. We could discuss what was terrorism and what was not. But in Ukraine definitely. Mr. Wilson. And my time is up. Part of being chairman, we have to abide by the time. And so I would like now to proceed could Congresswoman Robin Kelly of Illinois. Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the United States works to defeat the Islamic State there are opportunities to work with Russia, but the U.S. must create clear lines when working together on counterterrorism. The Russian tactics of indiscriminate bombing and targeting of civilian populations run contrary to our values and the long- term benefits of counterterrorism. The Kremlin's support of nonstate actors that align with their interests also endangers any potential partnership in the Middle East as doing so legitimizes rogue actors and discourages long-term stability. In addition to interfering in our elections with propaganda, the top U.S. general in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, testified that Russia is trying to legitimize the Taliban by spreading a false narrative that the Taliban is fighting the Islamic State. These are very concerning developments that undermine our ability to build mutual trust between the U.S. and Russia. So to the panel, given Russia's extremely poor track record on human rights, how should the U.S. cooperate with Russia without undermining our American values? In addition, what assurances should we seek from Russia? And what are the potential risks of increasing counterterror operations? I can repeat it again if that is too long. Mr. Clarke. Thank you very much for your question, Congresswoman. As I have stated, I don't think the United States should cooperate with Russia, I don't think that Russia is a reliable partner. I think that Russia is not accountable to its own citizens. And as you mentioned, the human rights abuses are one example of that. And I think just the lack of trust that permeates the overall relationship speaks volumes. There is a reason for that lack of trust. And I haven't see seen any evidence or any reasons of why that lack of trust should have dissipated. Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Mr. Cornell. Congresswoman, I concur with the previous speaker. Ms. Kelly. The other panelist? Mr. Saradzhyan. As I have said before, I think whenever lives of innocent people are at stake, that countries should cooperate to prevent killing of innocent people. And the domestic order in Russia--Russia is no democracy, of course. It is a semi-authoritarian regime, but what is the vital interest? Is that preventing terrorist attacks against citizens of a country? I think it is a vital interest. So acting with Russia in that interest would benefit the United States, in my view. At the same time, of course, given the current atmosphere and the rivalry between the two countries, it is difficult to expect any kind of golden age we saw relatively robust cooperation when the Bilateral Commission was established. So for Russia to be embraced as a full partner in this sphere, as I said, several things should happen. The conflict in Ukraine should be resolved, the conflict in Syria should be resolved, and these conflicts can be resolved, although the one in Ukraine is difficult to resolve. But even if these things happen, we have to wait for results of the congressional and the FBI inquiries, because these would determine the scope of cooperation or rivalry or whatever happens between the United States and Russia in this sphere. Thank you. Ms. Kelly. It seems like the President has this expectation that Russia can help us with North Korea. Do you see that at all? Mr. Cornell. Congresswoman, as I noted in my opening remarks, I think the problem with Russia is that when confronted with a choice between either supporting the United States in solving an international problem, even one that may be problematic for Russia on the one hand, and taking a course of action that would further undermine the interests of the United States, Russia chooses the latter option. And that is why I think it is highly unlikely. I think at this point Russia is probably, after China has shown tendencies of becoming fed up with North Korea, Russia--I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be the major lifeline of the North Korean regime in the years going forward. Mr. Clarke. Congresswoman, I think any cooperation with Russia needs to be viewed within the broader relation, and also within the broader set of Moscow's geopolitical ambitions, and not through the narrow lens, whether it is cooperation in Syria or the North Korea problem set. I think we need to look at this more comprehensively. Mr. Saradzhyan. I think Russia's participation in the talks with Iran on its nuclear program has showed that despite of certain deterioration of the relationship, when it is in the vital interest of Russia to attain a certain outcome, it can cooperate. I see Russia's vital interest in having no nuclear neighbors. So if we want to continue down the diplomatic path, you could expect Russia to behave accordingly in the United Nations Security Council. But if the path of war had been chosen, Russia would probably oppose that path because it is located next to North Korea and it just doesn't want a major conflict on its borders. That said, we should bear in mind that Russia's leverage vis--vis North Korea is fairly limited. And the only country that is considered as a lifeline for North Korea is China. If China stops supplies, North Korean Government will not last long. So it if there is a country where there is a silver bullet, so to say, the country is China, not Russia. Ms. Kelly. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Kelly. We now proceed to Congressman Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I find it fascinating, some of the dialogue today. Just my mind wanders from one point to another. Sir, where you just said that Russia would oppose action in North Korea because it doesn't want conflict on its borders, yet I don't know, to anybody that is noticing world events on a daily basis, Russia creates conflict on every single border every single day, unprovoked, in my opinion. But that having been said, like I said, I am curious about the meaning of this hearing or the reason for this hearing. I mean, Russia has been a strategic adversary, if not an outright enemy since its existence. And yet, we have people--and they confront America from without and within every single day. And it is well documented. It is well documented. And we have had Presidents cooperating, I mean, to the height of the Presidency. Once again, I must mention Mr. Harry Hopkins. And how about John Service working within the FDR administration? The heck with working within the administration, working in the Oval Office with the President. I mean, the history is replete. That having been said, I have just got to say that I think that we must separate the Russian people generally from the apparatchik, from the management, if you will, the leadership of the country. I think the people, generally speaking, of the Russia have a different mindset and would like to lead a different life to a certain extent, devoid of what the actions and the aims and interests of their leadership are. But there are two different things and we are dealing with their leadership. And I also must say that any kind equivocation or moral equivalency by some Members of this august body up here at the dais that the United States in its interest is similar to Russians and their interests when we inadvertently hurt civilians in some kind of a campaign, where the Russians don't care about hurting civilians, that is a very stark difference and I think it is important to draw that. That having been said, nations acting in their own self- interest--and Russia is going to act in its own self-interest and always has. And I would agree with Dr. Clarke and Dr. Cornell, particularly, I think, that would say that any time that they can use it against the United States in particular, even sometimes irrationally, that they seem to be willing to do that and they have a history of doing that. But I have one curiosity at a minimum: The Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon bombing where allegedly they tipped off. I say ``allegedly'' because these days you just don't what the truth about anything is reported from anywhere. But if they did inform our intelligence community in the United States in advance, what would have been their interest in doing that? I mean, were they just being Good Samaritans, I mean, at that level, or is there a different game here? Is it every now and then you throw the dog a bone and the big one is, ``We are going to take over this country over here while you guys watch the Tsarnaev brothers blow up your marathon''? What is your opinion on that? Mr. Clarke. I can't speak to what Russian interests might have been in providing that information or whether, if that information was provided, if it was a complete picture. What I can say is whatever information was provided did not prevent an attack still. And I would also say I agree with you that I think nations will always act in their own self-interest, but we should not mistake that with altruism. Mr. Cornell. Congressman, on the issue of the Tsarnaev brothers, I think I know little about this, the intelligence agencies know more, but it seems to me that intelligence agencies always trade with one another. And any information provided to the United States would be in the expectation of requiring something more valuable in return. Mr. Perry. Fair enough. Alright. So you have Georgia, you have Ukraine, you have Syria, but it is a little bit of a different circumstance, in my opinion. We opened the door for Russia to go in, as opposed to Russia creating the opportunity. With the diminishing time that I have, you have, like I said, Georgia and Ukraine in particular. I would say, who is next based on the model that Russia has used of creating the problem and then the insurgency and so on and so forth and fomenting a problem and then going in at some point and essentially just kind of taking over and creating a lot more discord? And then the other question is, in the China, Russia, North Korea gambit, if China decides that they are going to kind of start choking off North Korea economically, Russia will no doubt, will no doubt fill the void. What should our action be at that time? So those two questions, who is next and what action should we be contemplating? Mr. Clarke. Sir, I would say from--and again, I am a terrorism expert and I focus mostly on the Middle East, but from my broader reading, I would say I would be concerned about Moldova or one of the countries in the Baltics from a NATO purview. Mr. Cornell. Congressman, I think Russia is not finished in either Georgia or Ukraine, particularly in Georgia. The aim of the invasion in 2008 was not just to grab two pieces of land, Russia grabbed those pieces of land when it failed to achieve regime change, which Sergey Lavrov told Condoleezza Rice on the phone he wanted Saakashvili to go. Russia failed in achieving regime change. Right now, Russia has, if you will, they have seen that because of a vacuum left by the United States in the Middle East they haven't really paid so much attention to the post- Soviet space in the past years. They have set their sights further to play an outsize role in areas of the Middle East and in Europe where the United States has normally been, so to speak, more influential. At some point I wouldn't at all be surprised if they return to the South Caucasus either by targeting Georgia again or, as we saw examples of in April 2016, of fomenting a renewed war between Armenian and Azerbaijan that would enable them to move in to control the whole South Caucasus, which forms the access route for the United States and Europe into Central Asia and Afghanistan. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Perry. And actually Ranking Member Keating has some input for you about the Tsarnaev brothers. Mr. Keating. Just briefly, I don't want to take other members' times, but being familiar myself with that issue, Russia did indeed inform U.S. intelligence, including the FBI and CIA, of their concern. And they also asked our cooperation in giving them information because they perceived Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a threat and wanted the U.S. to give the information back. That is part of it. Thank you for allowing me to---- Mr. Wilson. Right. And thank you, Congressman Keating, for your very interesting input on that. And we now proceed to Congressman Brendan Byrne of Pennsylvania. Mr. Boyle. Well, I am Brendan Boyle. Brendan Byrne was Governor of New Jersey. And Bradley Byrne is a colleague from Alabama. Mr. Wilson. Well, it is a southern pronunciation. Mr. Boyle. Well, thank you. And thank you to our witnesses for this rather interesting hearing for various reasons. A few different points. The first is I had the opportunity this weekend to meet Yevgenia Albats, who is one of the few remaining truly independent journalists in Russia, and to hear from her firsthand about what it is like to try to be part of a free press, a rather dwindling free press in Russia, and it was eye opening; also sobering. She is in the United States this week doing a fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania. If you have or anyone has had the opportunity to watch the excellent two-part series by ``Frontline'' called ``Putin's Revenge,'' you will see her as well as a number of others that make quite clear Putin's intentions and actions. The second point I want to raise is something that is always in the back of my mind any time we discuss Russia. In 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, in East Germany, stationed there, was a KGB agent by the name of Vladimir Putin. He would go on to call the fall of the Soviet Union the single largest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. So any time, again, that we discuss Russia, we should keep that if not in the back of our mind, certainly the forefront, that that is the prism through which he views the U.S.-Russia relationship. Now, I was going to ask Mr. Carpenter a question about something he pointed out in his written testimony. I will open that up to anyone who wants to comment. In his testimony he outlined quite well Russia's disregard for civilians in air strikes in Syria. In fact, according to Physicians for Human Rights, 90 percent--90 percent--of the attacks against hospitals and medical personnel were conducted by Russia and the Assad regime. A, do you agree with this statistic from the Physicians for Human Rights? And second, how could anyone reasonably argue that Russia could possibly be an ally when it comes to counterterrorism when clearly their definition and our definition are quite different? Mr. Clarke. I would have to look at the data myself, but that is not really a surprising figure given what we know of the current situation in Syria, and I think just another reason to underscore why we should keep the Russians at arm's length in Syria and be very, very reticent of cooperating with Russia in the CT space. Mr. Cornell. Congressman, I have no doubt--no reason to doubt that statistic. I think an important point when we talk about regimes abroad is there are a lot of authoritarian regimes. Now, there are authoritarian regimes that we can work with because that is the reality of the world. There are others that we should not work with. And that brings back to my mind the brilliant essay by Jeane Kirkpatrick back in the late 1970s about dictatorships and double standards and I think we should apply a similar kind of thinking today. If you look at various authoritarian regimes, what is their ideology? Are they fundamentally opposed to U.S. interests in the world? And are they fomenting anti-American opinions and values among their own population? Clearly, that is the case in Russia. Whereas there are others, we can talk about many regimes that we work with that are also authoritarian, but they may allow their young people to form their own opinions and don't necessarily point in an anti-American direction or work to undermine the interests of the United States abroad. I think in those cases we should work with authoritarian regimes because we may even improve the situation in those countries by working with them, rather than standing out and hectoring them and pointing fingers at them. But when dealing with regimes that are so obviously domestic--just switch on RT or Sputnik and you find out the spewing out of anti-American propaganda and outright lies that is coming out of Russia, and they are doing that for a reason. And we have to keep that in mind. Mr. Boyle. I only have 30 seconds left, so I just want to switch very briefly to Hezbollah, because I recently had an amendment as part of legislation we passed that addressed Russian support for Hezbollah. Russia has transferred weapons to Hezbollah, provided air cover through air strikes for Hezbollah foot soldiers, and protected Hezbollah-held territory with Russian air defense. Could any of you talk a little bit about Russia's motivations here for this strategic support for Hezbollah? Mr. Clarke. Sure, Congressman. I have written a lot about Lebanese Hezbollah, including Lebanese Hezbollah's gains in Syria and what we expect Hezbollah to look like post-Syria. It has received a lot of training. It has experienced a lot of on- the-ground tactical cooperation with the Russians; so working with a nation-state in support of the Assad regime. And I think Russia's main interest is not having to deal with its own military, but actually working through a proxy or a cutout, and a highly capable one, I might add, in Lebanese Hezbollah, to fight against various jihadist groups on the ground, to include ISIS. Mr. Boyle. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Brendan Boyle. And we now proceed to Congresswoman Lois Frankel of Florida. Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You got that right. Mr. Wilson. As an old friend, of course. Ms. Frankel. Thank you. First of all, gentlemen, thank you all for being here. This has been a very interesting conversation or discussion today. I am going to get back to the subject matter of this hearing, ``Russia: Counterterrorism Partner or Fanning the Flames?'' I want to start with two questions and maybe I will get a chance to ask another one. The first is, I would like to know, what do you think are the implications, if any, of our President not recognizing or I think denying Russian interference with our election, despite the fact that our intelligence community unanimously has said there is interference? That is number one. Number two, in my effort to be bipartisan in some sense, I would like you to give me your opinion of how a Russian involvement in the Iran agreement and, for example, removing chemical agents from Syria plays into your opinion that there should be no cooperation. And then, I think, I guess, I do have a third question, which is could you explain what is the difference between, I think you said, we should communicate but not cooperate? Mr. Cornell. Congresswoman, with regard to the election issues, it is not my area of research. The only thing I would like to point out is I think everybody should understand that it is not about the support for a particular person or against a particular person, but an effort to undermine the legitimacy of the United States and its political system both at home and abroad, and it is unfortunate that that becomes a partisan issue where it shouldn't be. I think on the issues of Syria and Iran, when we talk about cooperation on counterterrorism, and several of us have said that we are skeptical of that notion, it doesn't mean we shouldn't have diplomatic relations with Russia. Counterterrorism cooperation is something much deeper. It is about intelligence sharing, actual joint operations, which would send exactly the wrong signal to Russia, particularly in view of their other activities. Now, I think Iran and Syria fall into that category. I think, unfortunately, the previous administration opened the door, as was said by one of the Congressmen earlier, for Russia to take a position in the Middle East that it has not traditionally had. A colleague of mine calls Mr. Putin's regime the vacuum cleaner. Wherever they find a vacuum in international politics they fill that vacuum. And we have to make sure we don't create that type of vacuum for them. On Iran, the only thing I would say, that yes, the Russians were partly cooperative in the Iranian nuclear agreement. They were also the force that helped bolster the Iranian nuclear program to begin with, beginning with all the Iranian nuclear reactors that they have built and all the material that they have sold to Iran. Ms. Frankel. Did anyone else want to respond? If not, I have another question. Mr. Saradzhyan. The cases you pointed out are cases, in my view, that show that when it is in Russia's interest it cooperates with the U.S. on issues. It is in Russia's interest to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, and therefore it is in Russia's interest to reach an agreement with Iran on that issue if it puts constraints on Iran's ability to acquire nuclear weapons. But if Russia were to choose between a diplomatic solution or a conflict with a nuclear weapon state, it would choose a diplomatic solution, even if it doesn't work. So Russia would not support the military operation against North Korea. Ms. Frankel. Alright. Let me just go to my last question. One of my colleagues asked about, I think, what are the do's and the don't's of our communications or our interaction with Russia. I think Mr. Carpenter gave us some don't's. Does anybody have some do's? Mr. Clarke. Trust in God, but lock your car. I mean, I think we should be open minded with the relationship with Russia, but also very guarded. So, I mean, I know that sounds contradictory, but I don't think we should completely shut off the relationship, we should be highly skeptical, and as I noted earlier, I think very measured and very judicious. Ms. Frankel. Alright. Thank you very much. I yield back. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congresswoman Frankel. We now proceed to Congresswoman Norma Torres of California. Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clarke, I have another saying: Pray for the best, but plan for the worst. Overall, I think terrorism is a serious threat to our national security and we need partners, allies, to help us fight terror and protect our homeland. Fortunately, we have some great allies in Europe, in the Middle East, and in Latin America who share our interests and our common values and human decency. Russia, on the other hand, does not share any of that. Russia certainly does not share our values or human decency. I am sorry that Dr. Carpenter is no longer here, but I am hoping, Dr. Cornell, you can answer or you can try to address this issue. Can you go into greater detail about corruption in the Russian Government? What is the impact of that corruption on the countries that Russia is currently involved in? And I don't know if we speak about Russia in the same tone as we would speak about Putin since you have said that he is worth in the billions. Mr. Cornell. Congresswoman, I think there are two aspects. One of course, which is well known, I would only point to Karen Dawisha's book about Putin's kleptocracy, which details the rise of the system in detail. I think the more important point, as we look at Russia's behavior on the international scene, is that Russia utilizes corruption as an instrument of statecraft. As I mentioned previously, Russia has its toolbox with everything from cyber, to military aggression, to economic sanctions, and everything in between, that they can use. Corruption is one of those elements. And as I have done for many years, looked at Russian foreign policy, especially toward the Independent States of the former Soviet Union, I think we find very clearly that one of the reasons they are against the development of democratic institutions and accountability in those states is because they prefer to be able to deal, to build a sphere of influence, by having weak, corrupt semi- authoritarian governments in those countries, which are answerable to Russia because of the corrupt deals they have with Russia, rather than be answerable--accountable to their own people. And I think you see this in Russia, the state of Russia. You see it also, obviously, in Russian corporations, Gazprom being the most important example, that are able to enter markets in a way that obviously American companies cannot do by the use of corruption, coercion, and intimidation. Mrs. Torres. So in other words, it is a Russian way of life. Mr. Cornell. I think it is Mr. Putin's regime's way of life. As you may have seen in the past couple of months, there are growing protests, public protests in Russia, by truck drivers and by other groups in society against the system in which they live. Because, as I mentioned previously, this is a regime, I wouldn't quite call it on the ropes, but this is a regime that is very vulnerable economically as a result of its overreliance on oil, as a result of its corruption and kleptocracy, which is based on stealing money rather than investing money into the society. Mrs. Torres. Which is why I really like to speak about the Russian people in a different way that we would speak about the Russian Government and their current leader. Mr. Cornell. I absolutely agree, Congresswoman. The only caveat I would say is that people are vulnerable to propaganda. Propaganda exists for a reason, which is that it works. And with the constant anti-American propaganda coming out of the Russian media, that unfortunately affects the opinion of the Russian people and will do so for years to many could. Mrs. Torres. Let me try to get another question. Dr. Clarke, do you think that Russia's information war could expand to other parts of the world beyond Europe and the United States? For example, one of our closest allies and neighbors here in the Western Hemisphere, Mexico, they have a pretty large election, a national election coming up next year. What do you think are the odds of Russia moving in to influence that election the way they influenced our election last year? Mr. Clarke. So I think--and my colleagues, Dr. Christopher Paul and Dr. Miriam Matthews, have a really great piece on this called ``The Russian Firehose of Falsehood,'' that is a really excellent look at what Russia is doing in the information operation space. And I think the odds are quite high simply because it has worked, and we have seen it work. And so when something works, the recipe is usually, yes, more of that. So I would not be surprised to see Russia meddling in other areas, as well, beyond its traditional sphere of influence. Mrs. Torres. Thank you. And I yield back. Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Congressman Torres. And now Congressman Brad Sherman of California, who was my colleague yesterday at a conference here in Washington, a soul mate. Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I would point out that, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. gratuitously took anti-Russian positions. Wherever there was a dispute over territorial integrity versus self-determination, in each case we came out against the Russian position, whether that be Kosovo or northern Kosovo or the border regions of Croatia, et cetera. That being said, I don't think any of us is surprised. We have to do business with Russia. But we shouldn't be fooled. And don't only lock your car, Dr. Clarke, get an alarm, park under the light, et cetera. The Muslim world is in a three-way civil war between moderate Sunnis, extremist Brotherhood-influenced Sunnis, and a Shiite alliance based in Tehran. You have got over 20 million mostly Sunni Muslims in Russia, yet Russia has decided to take the Shiite position. Is there any effort by Russia's over 20 million Sunni Muslims to get their country to be less accommodating to the Shiites and more accommodating to the Sunnis? Mr. Cornell. Congressman, I think there are growing frustrations among Russia's Sunni Muslim population on this issue. I think, however, that most of these people--and actually most of the people in Russia's neighborhood continue to be dominated by Russian-controlled media, state-controlled media, which means that they are not--I don't think they fully have the same information space as we do, to put it mildly. Mr. Sherman. Well, they know that the Russian Government is supporting the Alawites in Syria. They know that the Russian Government is friendly toward Tehran. They know there is a Shiite-Sunni conflict. Is this fine with the imams among the Tatars and Chechnyans and others? Mr. Cornell. Congressman, I think that is one of the reasons why so many young people of Muslim origin in Russia are being recruited into jihadi groups. I would also point out that we very often talk about Central Asia as a locus of radicalization. In fact, all of that radicalization takes place outside of Central Asia. Over 85 percent of the Central Asian recruits into ISIS and other jihadi groups in Syria and Iraq have been radicalized while being labor migrants in Russia, not in their home countries, and that points to a serious problem there. Mr. Sherman. I mean, there was a man who came from Uzbekistan to the United States and he radicalized here as far as we can tell. Mr. Cornell. Yes, yes. Mr. Sherman. And is Russia more friendly with the Shiites because they don't pose a radicalization threat? It would be hard for Iran to emerge as a leader of Sunni Muslims in Russia or anywhere in their near abroad. Have they intentionally picked the side that has the least appeal for their own Muslims? Mr. Cornell. Sir, that may be a contributing factor. I think the main factor is that Iran has been a strategic partner for Russia because of its posture against the United States in the Middle East, and because they early on in the 1990s joined forces in preventing the growth of U.S. influence in the neighborhood of Russia, especially in Central Asian and the Caucasus, Iran being in the south of the Caspian Sea, Russia in the north, trying to thwart U.S. influence in that region between them. It is a purely geopolitical interest that predates the real big conflict between Sunnis and Shias. Mr. Clarke. I would say ditto for Syria, a traditional longstanding Cold War ally, as well, and long-time purchaser of Russian weapons. Mr. Sherman. And is our broadcasting to the Russian people effective on these issues? Dr. Cornell. Mr. Cornell. Sir, I just call the attention to studies by the U.S. Government itself that have found foreign broadcasting to be very subpar. I think there is a serious problem in the efforts by the United States to reach out to communities that are potentially interested in hearing the American viewpoint on things in the world. Mr. Sherman. Is this because our technology doesn't get the message onto their device, whether it be computer or radio, or because our message is lame, or just because we are not believed? Mr. Cornell. I think it is the two first ones. I think the message needs serious improvement. I think also, if we look at the staffing of the radios and TV stations that we operate, they are heavily operated by people who are exiles from their own countries who have lost touch with their countries many years ago. I think there are many aspects to be looked at there. Mr. Sherman. And are we as effective on the Internet as we are--I mean, there is a tendency for the government to lag behind technology. Are we doing as much as we should on the Internet as opposed to radio broadcasting, the technology of the 1970s, where we at least have a bureaucracy that is into that? What about the Internet? Mr. Clarke. So, I think this falls into the general sphere and extends to our areas to counter violent extremism or prevent terrorism writ large. We are very good at the kinetic aspects of CT, tanks, guns, bombs. We have for too long put off countering the narrative as the softer side of counterterrorism and we have seen with the current conflict with the Islamic State that we have got a long way to go. Mr. Sherman. My time has expired. I thank the chairman for staying late and---- Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Mr. Sherman. I want to thank Ranking Member Keating, all of our witnesses today, thank you for being here, and the professional staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The United States is fortunate to have such dedicated personnel. Thank you very much, and we are adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- Material Submitted for the Record [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]