not happen just the other day. it started three years ago when the republicans started to make statements. the congressional black caucus. we won't even fight for their rights. so republicans, they will fight, the situation from fox news. all kind of scenario, all kind of untruths. all will be untrue. the democrats have facts. bill have facts right in front of them. and going to say, i love said. i hope this is less turn. >> host: we get the point. >> guest: not all democrats lack fight. congressman elisha cummings most definitely has a lot of fight in him. the chairman on that committee has attended two of attempted to put up cherry pick parts of transcripts.

they sent a letter to the speaker yesterday demanding that the chairman be censured and removed as the committee chair because it is shabby treatment. the ranking member of that committee cannot allow said given opening statement. we did begin to speak a man having his might cut off. ..

on the level and nature of the fight. democrats better learn to fight harder because republicans play politics to win. they play hardball and democrats if they want to be competitive, they better play hardball and get their voters out. that is the key have to get them trained to vote in every election and local elections. that's the judges that are putting your kids behind bars him at the local school boards that are deciding whether or not your kids are going to learn creationism or intelligent design versus learning the science -- >> hello to the c-span viewers. sorry we are a little bit late. we had some trouble getting into

the events. [laughter] we think that is attributable to the attendance and security. so, we are going to discuss the ukraine today. complex and confusing crisis even by the standard of such things. it's interesting to note that among the disagreements between the united states and russia on the ukraine issue right now are whether there has been an invasion of ukraine, who the president of ukraine is, whether there have been attacks on synagogues and churches in ukraine and whether hundreds of thousands of people have fled ukraine causing a humanitarian crisis. these are facts in dispute. so i think we can hopefully bring some clarity to these and other issues. we have a tremendous panel to do that with your today. i think perhaps not all of the perspectives and those facts

would be represented that we can shine some clarity on them. first, we have fiona hill, the senate director of the united states and europe and my boss, so please be nice to her. she is a former national intelligence officer for eurasia and the author of mr. putin operative in the kremlin which is of the six identities of mr. putin which i think everyone here should read and memorize because it might come in very useful in the future. on my left we have steve pieper, senior fellow here at the brookings and former ambassador to ukraine and former deputy assistant secretary at the state department. and to my right we have michael o'hanlon, senior fellow and author of more books than i have read and a veteran and a list of all these types of crisis. so let's just take this

write-off and fiona, i'd like to start with you if you don't mind. i wonder if you can give us some sense of what are the russians in particular your man vladimir putin giving in ukraine and what are they trying to accomplish? >> this is actually a pretty complex situation on the ground and crimea and ukraine. in many respects this is a culmination of the past 20 years for the soviet union and russia. there's been a very long established rush of interest in crimea. not just obviously in the strategic relationship with ukraine. but if we go back to the early 1990s to the time when steve was one of our earlier ambassadors in ukraine, there have been a whole host of claims either russian federation at different levels including under president boris yeltsin about

sovereignty over crimea. crimea is the one that got away in the past soviet collapse for russia. it was transferred as all of you would know it was seen all over the news all over again. in 1954 by khrushchev of the russian federation to ukraine. there is a great deal of discussion about the historical link between crimea and russia, going back to catherine the great and the establishment of consolidation of the rule of the russian empire over the southern parts of ukraine and crimea, which was a different point also wonder about sovereignty at least the protection of the ottoman empire. so we are going back a long time in history. but in a long continuous period of time, crimea was under the jurisdiction of russia and of the form we know today as the russian federation picking up what was then the russian entity

into the russian empire. so in many respects, there has been a great desire for the restoration of this bureaucratic step that khrushchev made back in the 1950s to bring crimea back. we had moscow at various points talking about this into the russian parliament over and over again and actually signing resolutions and bills about ukraine. and you might remember at various points of vladimir putin and his costume changes as written with russian bikers on an annual rally down to crimea setting the kind of interest of the russian population into crimea. so, what we've seen on the ground in crimea isn't much of a surprise to any of us that have been watching things over the last 20 years it was a great crisis in ukraine when the claims about crimea and the assertion of the different interests in the population mostly the russian speakers have

reasserted themselves. in the 1990s after the soviet union and again after the orange revolution in ukraine in 2004, at various points when they appealed for nato back in 2,008 which is the same time that george made at the same request and ended up in the role between russia and georgia. how crimea however is complicated and i think as we get on with the discussion we should try to bring this out. it is the case of many of the population in crimea of russian speaking, but it's not always the case everyone in the crimean peninsula thinks they should be part of russia. the recent poll that came out of the crimea that was carried out by various ukrainians is just before the russian movement suggested that 41% of the population that particular point after the fall of yanukovych are interested in some form of unification with russia but that is not the majority. and crimea was also, by virtue

of its history, the residents of a whole host of different people come up particularly in addition to the russian speakerscome into the russian peninsula, the crimean. many of you will have heard more about them in the last several weeks and days. about 15% of the population -- again, you don't have to be careful about the percentages being bandied around. and of the crimean was a policy in the peninsula in the 1940s during world war ii because of the prevailing soviet spheres just like the russians before them of the minority groups influenced to see that they might collaborate with not see germany or with other groups, and perhaps the question of the crimean linkages to the soviet union. they were specifically targeted and they were allowed to turn after the collapse of the soviet union, and they said let's just

say a not very favorable memory of the corporations into the soviet union. and therefore another group with a distant view of how the speed of an should go in the future. so, my basic point of all of this is extremely competitive situation. but we have actually been dealing with the situation behind the scenes. and sometimes in public for the past 20 years. what has happened on the ground in crimea isn't that much o of a separate given the fact that we are now dealing with another question about the future disposition and government of ukraine itself. >> thanks, fiona. to clarify because you focused your remarks very strongly on the crimea. does that imply from the perspective of the russians this is primarily about crimea and they are not actually questioning the rest of ukraine and unlikely to move further into ukraine? >> i see the situation very similar to turkey in 1974. probably stretching the mind of many people in the audience but i see a lot of people that might

remember this. [inaudible] >> in 1974 there was a lot in the cypress and you might remember there is a very similar situation unfolded. the history of cyprus that the vote in fact in favor of the reunification eventually with greece. this triggered the violence and also then triggered a response by turkey in defense of the community and the intervention. what they did then is they moved the arms not just the communities, but they took actually the cities which wasn't morally seen as being a kind of part of the community. and they took it as a bargaining chip. then for the next several years everyone was arguing about what was going to have been forgetting the fact that the rest had been pretty much occupied. i see that what we are seeing today about all of the questions

in the other cities with large russian speaking populations were in actual fact into the polling shows that they are not interested in being a part of russia. it's very similar that they are actually deserting us by the questions and other places when the actual concern is about crimea and having leverage about what ukraine does in the future. they don't want to see ukraine on the european union or as a partisan nato. they've made that clear or along the period of time. the red line, although they actually didn't say that quite so explicitly, when we got the situation on the overthrow of yanukovych are now questions about where it's ukraine does next. >> okay. next. >> okay. steve, how are the ukrainians seeing this russian effort and what are they trying to do in

response? >> i think if you are the active prime minister or the head of the ukraine parliament has now acting president, you may be asking yourself why did i take this job. because you have a long and busy to do list. and a lot of it is going to be internalized. part of what they are doing is to destabilize the government, which as it is pointed out everyone is talking about they want to sign the association agreement with the european union and they do not want that to happen. so a large part of the case is whether they do internally. they try to get the government up and running. they have to fill out the cabinet and make the transfer on time. they've got to prepare because right now although he's become acting president as a result of perfectly legitimate elementary procedures and he's not going to have the legitimacy of somebody

that goes out and wins so getting that is very important. they are also doing things like beginning to assign governors. they are beginning to go to some of the oligarchs. that may be a two-way sort because on the streets they ask we were trying to get rid of corruption and trying to separate government and business. this isn't the model the likes of a have to be careful how they managed that. there's already an international monetary fund on the ground and there have been those discussions. and what they have to work out is in agreemen an agreement thas assistance in return for which ukraine has certain economic reforms, which are really going to hurt. and i think the one sign or one of the good signs that the people in charge recognize how this is going to be as deep by

minister said i'm having a cabinet of ministers because what we are going to have to do to turturn the economy around we so painful politically because it's going to drive our political standing into the ground. and so they have to manage that. the third challenge is don't do anything dumb. it was also a bias for the parliament in its first days after yanukovych fled the country to try to overturn the 2010 language law. you can debate that, but moving right away cause a bit of concern on the part of russia because this is what is coming to us it was important not to veto that because they want to be inclusive and make sure that eastern ukraine does comfortable with it. another thing not to do is don't talk about when you talk about europe, talk about the european union and don't talk about nato. i saw that someone was going to

propose a bill about nato recession. that is the kind of thing that would provoke eternal divisions right now that they don't need. turning to the external challenges, how do we deal with crimea. and i think the government is going to proceed in a starting point that crimea is a part of ukraine. it was recognized by all of the post-soviet states in 1991 but when the soviet union collapsed each is in the current borders and crimea was a part of the socialist republic. so that will be their starting point. the problem they have is for all of the flaws, boris yeltsin basically respected that. every time in the '90s when you have the russian parliament passed the law that says yeltsin came out and did the right

thing, but part of ukraine we respect the territorial integrity. and the problem is that it's now flooding into ten -- of what bld america then and he doesn't believe that. it's very important that they continue to do what they have done for the last week which is to keep the military race trained. it's been quite commendable and there are probably about 12,000 troops on the peninsula. they have stayed on the bases and there've been at least seven cases to revoke them and they've not responded. i think that's important. what they say one comment about the situation where i think is a little bit less tense than the military terms than it was a couple days ago. it still is worrisome. russia and ukraine right now are

in the state away from something very bad happening that could spin out of control. and there needs to be some action. there needs to be some kind of de-escalation. the second thing they have to deal with is taking the decision by the crimean parliament to deal with russia although it's interesting it was 78-0 and there are now reports of the members that say even though they were not told of the vote e that they were physically denied so they couldn't cast a negative vote. the acting president has already declared that in the issue basically prohibiting it i'm not sure that the ukrainians can, but they will try to delegitimize it. that is against the ukrainian

law. $2.2 million are being reported for the referendum which has reached the number because it has 1.8 residence. the russians so far have refused to allow the observers on the peninsula. would there be any kind of observation that has lots of questions beginning although it isn't clear they have the tools to basically stop it. and then the ukrainian government needs to keep pushing to say that they are prepared to talk. so for the russian attitude is there is no legitimate government in kiev. they say they still recognize yanukovych as the president. mr. yanukovych gave a tv interview about two weeks ago. he was seen briefly a week ago, and i don't think anybody really knows where he is. and i think president putin in

his press conference on tuesday was quite candid and basically saying he has no political future. what ukraine has had to push to see if they can get some dialogue going babies inserting with little pieces. there was indication by putin that may begin an economic dialogue to broaden that out. these are all big challenges for the cabinet that is about eight days old now, and it's going to face some real tests in the next couple of months. >> it is a tough job when it comes to a nice house in the zoo. >> just took her fight when i listen to your strategy, the ukrainian strategy on crimea i'm not clear as to whether it represents an antenna to hold onto crimea or just an attempt to have a soft landing while they lose it. >> i think they are going to push to hold onto it. and this is i think from the ukrainian point of view it's not just about crimea. and because the complexities of

crimea -- co know what's right. 60% of the population of crimea description. in 91, folks in the population voted for independence and for the independent ukraine's state. so the voting is going to be a little bit more interesting. the crimean are 12% of the population. they always said that they were going to boycott the referendum. but i think -- i don't think that they are prepared to give it up and it isn't just about crimea. but they would be asking themselves if we just accept crimea's departure of do events of the president for places like kiev and try to pull off a bit of that eastern ukraine as well? so this is a point of principle but i suspect the ukrainian government is going to stand very hard on. >> so, mike, this is a complex and confusing situation. just the type of the united states is typically very good at entering. [laughter] what do you see that their

response should be? >> thanks, jeremy. nice to be part of this panel and being with you today. i would say a couple things to frame of the subsequent discussion. one is i don't like president obama should be influenced by the broader political debate we are having here about whether somehow his foreign-policy uncertainty in other parts of the world has provoked this. to my mind, first of all, the answer is probably not. i think he's done some fairly robust things which are underappreciated. he may want to talk about that for himself to remind us that he has rebalanced to asia-pacific. he's trying to hold up the defense budget. he's still on his word from preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon on his watch and we still have 30,000 troops in afghanistan. he may want to say all those things a little bit more and think about fixing some of the policies where i think we are not doing as well such as in syria. but most of all, i don't feel like he should worry coming and i don't think he is all that inclined to worry that this broad cacophony of criticism

about this foreign-policy needs to be proven wrong by how we react to ukraine. the states are too high and the potential for doing something really wrong is to hide if you think in those terms. second, thinking about what specific small glittery options we may have, not so much directly in relation to ukraine itself, but as i think about the full taxonomy of things, we have a lot of nato allies. some of whom are worried, and i know that we are doing things to make some of them less worried. for example, additional tactical aircraft in the baltic states and we normally would have had. and a half a dozen more than we normally might have sent out on the recent rotation to one of the baltic states. that is one of the things we should be prepared to do i believe because there should be no doubt about our commitment to nato allies even thosthe nato as that were stripped skeptical. second, if russia were to launch some kind of a general assault against ukraine, i think the talk of helping ukraine's

military with various kinds of assistance should be seriously considered. i was just reviewing ukraine's military budget is only about $2.5 billion a year. russia is about 70 billion. so there is a 20 some-1 disparity in the spending levels, and about a-1 disparity inside. i'm not saying we should encourage a fair fight. it would always be better to refuse at any point along the latter, but i think it's actually reasonable and appropriate for us to be thinking about how we might help ukraine's military at least protect certain parts of the country if it really comes to that, which i desperately hope it won't. i would say, however, i don't agree that america but i admire greatly to recently wrote that one of the steps we ought to take us to get nato's rapid reaction force somehow in the early stages of preparation to do something instead of saying what we should do. but he did suggest it was worth

making the russians worry a little bit. i flat out do not agree with the idea of the nato or the military suggestions of direct action in this crisis. for one thing i think and will overtake bison is primarily symbolic. symbolic. symbolic. and second, i would hope they are only that. because i don't think david could see any good missions we could successfully carry out or should want to carry out in this context even if things got a bit worse than they are at the moment. that leaves me with one other point on the military option front. again, there's a lot of talk about with the issue of nato into the nato enlargement and ukraine's potential role. i'm personally opposed to it. i would like to see us reaffirm our commitment to ukraine's well-being in other ways -- reaffirmation of earlier commitment, some of which steve pieper worked on and make it clear that we will use economic sanctions if this gets worse but not talk about the nato military. kissinger had a good op-ed yesterday in the post that suggests some tiny small things

we offer to putin to ask them to basically acknowledge he's the bad guy here, which he is. he is in the wrong and i'm not trying to suggest we cover or apologize for putin, but we might need to think about ways you can offer a little face-saving. and definitely postponement of any membership in nato to meet with pa reasonable thing on that context. now turning to where we do need to be prepared to be tough, and i will finish on this. what savings stay where they are. there is a referendum on secession in crimea in a week and if russia chooses to go along with that, the problem i have is that it's too soon. i'm not against a discussion personally of whether crimea should be independent or part of russia but it has to be after temperate and attention and fears hav have columned and coo. putin likes to raise xhosa vote. i wasn't in favor of the recognizing of independence but we took a decade to do it. at least we let things calm

down. and that's the sort of proposal you need is the referendum after a year or two or three if there's ever going to be one. if things were to stay as they are weenie to apply sanctions that aren't hurtful to the russian elite. i'm not suggesting broad-based sanctions based on the referendum and potential annexation of crimea. i'm not suggesting we try to go after the energy sector or banks that i think putin and his cronies need to have a sanction on their travel visas and bank accounts put in place and stay in place. stay in place for years, and we need to find a way to send that message clearly. i would also war or less permanently evict russia from the g8, sort of boycotting sochi is it enough. we have to make this lasting in the event that putin basically annexes crimea under the looming referendum. i would suggest fairly strong measures. but again i would interested you can suggest sanctions on russia at least until things get

substantially worse that even the referendum that if we solve large-scale war in ukraine that's where we've got to i think come down like a ton of bricks economically. it might be worth raising the prospect now that i wouldn't go there just yet, and i probably wouldn't go over the referendum oon the crimea necessarily. so that is a quick overview on at least some of the tools we have at least my initial take on which ones we may want to invoke at which stages. >> so, co not, when we think about how russia and putin would react to some of those steps, i think that we have to sort of understand what position putin is coming from in taking these measures, and there is -- there is in some of the commentary around town the notion that this represents russian weakness rather than strength that this invasion demonstrates that he couldn't pull ukraine into a

russian orbit through other means and it guarantees whatever is left of ukraine after he is done well move to the west may be not to nato but to the agreement that he was trying into a void. >> what do we think of the arguments and what do they tell us about how putin might react to some of the measures m measuh might ask >> i we have to be very careful about categorizing things as a sign of weakness or strength especially in an instance like this. we are seeing this in the united states perspective. president obama has been blamed for being weak and somehow the instigator of all of this as well. i think we all know the situation is more complex and much more difficult than that and we can't really make these black-and-white distinctions on

any front. what putin is definitely taking is a moment of weakness. when perhaps at home right now for this moment he sees himself in the position of strength if we look at what has been happening in russia over the weeks leading up to the crisis in ukraine, which i don't think anyone would have predicted to evolve in the way that it has, is that putin has actually finished a very successful olympic games and all of us and general trust the olympic games. ..

his personal popular, the approval of this activity at home is something on a downward trajectory relatively speaking in the months leading up to sochi. in november and december of last year he hit his low point. and enviable low point. everybody else -- but putin is the only game in town politically and russia. is always running against his past self. he had approval ratings in the 80s in the past. 20-point drop from the past. the narrative about what's happening in ukraine has taken hold in russia. i have a whole host of opinion polls on the left that demonstrate this. but putin has been pointed in

ukraine is disaster. this is nationalistic extremist on the street. this is a protest movement out of control with no leadership that is basically overturned the government. this is a result of economic crisis, mismanagement on the part of the nine. putin has been very critical of yanukovych. putin's old position has been very strong dumping the person returns rush around from the 1990s -- rush iran from 1990 those provided into coming in his second decade of disparity. is pointing and saying see, this is what you get if you mismanaged the situation, economy and politics and you get basically this kind of uprising, this kind of what russians would call, something without any kind of purpose but this was of the opposition in charge of this. this is basically extremists

overthrowing the government. if you look at russian polls, a vast majority people in russia have bought that narrative. many have also bought a narrative in eastern parts of ukraine with the get a lot of the russian media. all of the stories we are now basically argument about, the depictions of what's happening on the ground, are fairly meaningless because our part is not getting out there in the russian media. this is pretty much a one-sided depiction. putin right now is operating from a position of strength. it may be limited over the short-term a right now as long as the native holds while he has a bump in his ratings he's in a position of comparative strength because he is not doing this -- he's doing this for political base at home. as i mentioned, the issue of crimea even if boris yeltsin might applaud the russian parliament at different points, has been a very popular symbol of basically russia's policy

status. it's something rightfully should been part of russia. it's not just the territory, a vacation destination of the sars and the stalin and others. it's also people, russian speakers. russian speakers have been left alall the way around the borders of the russian federation and discourse of them sitting in kazakhstan or the baltic states i do i would be feeling very nervous about this because in the past there's been a lot of questions about the russian speakers necessary just ethnic russians that local elites who mostly spoke russian and not any other native languages about their faith and their disposition. this is about a post int israel colossus, not the collapse of the soviet union, a kind of thing the braves have engaged in when they've gone off to the balkans in the 1980s or fought with the u.s. services in 1956. it's the french in algeria. this is a past imperial hangover that lots of people have felt very badly about. this plays very well at home especially if the narrative holds. the weakness will come later if the narrative falls apart as we

are all suggesting it will. if this causes questions about territorial acquisitions that russia hides or soviet union did after world war ii, there's lots of territory today that were not in russia, huge -- obscure place. that was part of mongolia or the broader china empire. huge swaths of the far east of the river though parts of china into the 1860s. in the new tory -- the northern territory of japan's there were disputes that could backfire from mr. putin over the longer-term but right now he is not as weak as he looks at we should be very careful. >> so, steve, as fiona just reminded us what enables this is the lack of good governance in ukraine. they've had over the past 20 years a sort of unique system of alternating hypocrisy is. and i'm wondering since it's

been so critical for what they are losing right now and since we've always had the view here i believe that ukraine is at the end of the day nationalist country, very jealous of its sovereignty, will this is sort of similar event, will this invasion, will this potential loss of crimea changes that system? is moving forward will they be able to unite east and west, whatever is left? >> well, i think a big question here is going to turn on how effective is this current government. and is able to be inclusive. they did not get off to good start in that if you look at the cabinet administers, there really is no one in that cabinet who can say i speak for eastern ukraine. that's unfortunate now. it wasn't for lack of trying. they did apparently offer cabinet positions a couple of members of the party of regions.

that's president yanukovych his old party, and they turned the job down. which may be a smart calculation is the premise to calls the cabinet, perhaps you don't want to be a member in that government. so think they have the challenge. that they can manage things in a competent way, a more open and transparent way. they got to lose and avoid some of the habits of the past. it's got to look different from the what did other the previous three or four presidents. they're going to do it a at a te without the challenges coming from russia. i think the russians will test. there's this phenomenon with a call now in eastern ukraine what's called protest tourist. these are russians coming across the border as a tourist in the first to do is a look for the closest pro-russia and i.t. of rally can go and join or maybe stir it up a little bit. i think this was a model we probably saw in crimea a week

ago. the times i visited crimea you do not get the sense of huge ethnic tensions between the ethnic russians and the ethnic ukrainians and the crimean tartare's. the crimea tartars were unhappy because they're still kind of basically recover some land and the place to let the other was a sense of real friction. and i think we went from that point to the crimean parliament calling for, join russia in referendum in part because there was some effort to push the anacortes. my guess is that russia wanted that to happen it probably would not have happened. but we may see some of the play out in eastern ukraine and that would be a challenge. having said that, i think it's important for member that crimea is the only part of the ukraine were ethnic russians are a majority. eastern ukraine, although there may be more russian language speakers, probably 40-45% of the country uses russian as their first language, whatever else in

eastern ukraine ethnic ukrainians constitute the majority. my guess is that distinction is blurred a lot in the last 20 years. and even if in the '90s when i was in kiev whenever traveled to eastern ukraine i would get the sense there was a sense of national identity. it was not as deep as it was out in the west but you still got the sense that in eastern ukraine they saw themselves solely most of the province of the country, as ukrainians. i think that's an important, to bear in mind. the other point i think it'll be interesting to see when napoleon goes. i wonder how this action by the russians, which certainly in eastern ukraine they're getting one view for those are watching russian television, and flatter my putin and foreign minister lavrov and defense minister have all said these guys, they are not russian troops. mr. putin in his press

conference said these are local militias. and if you've seen any of the films, they don't look like they a ragtag local militia. is a very professional force, very well-trained. but he said, somebody asked him, but they are worried -- they're wearing russian combat fatigue. he said there are these stores all over the post soviet space we can get these kind of uniforms. the reporter then did not have the sense to ask the next question was, can you get russian jeeps and armored personnel carriers at these stores? because those are all of her crimea as well. the question is going to be how to ukrainians look at this? and my guess is that support for the european union which some polls in the fall were anywhere from 51 to a size 58%, that may go up. my guess is even in eastern ukraine where they are likely uncomfortable with what happened in kiev without the government let them have transix --

yanukovych is in some way to extend the understand. that may have unintended consequence. that's the last point again, they have to be very careful how they handle nato. i hear what mike is saying and i guess i would disagree a little bit. my guess is over the next 10 years you're not going to see ukraine usually consider joining nato. i say this i as somebody who in 2008 testified to congress that ukraine was ready for an action plan. they certainly checked all the boxes, but i guess in the last five years i have reassessed that because even when you have the old president and a pro-nato government, the popular support for joining nato never got above 25, 20%. 30 at the most. nato is never quintessentially consider a country for membership when you bring a country where the population is not culpable with it. it's a difficult to me to see that changing.

in one sense i think the russians ough ought to be assurd ought to be assured that there's not a realistic prospect in the next five to 10 years of ukraine joining nato. the problem i think we have that is there is no way that the united states government and nato can or should stick to the russians, no, we're not going to take it in. there's a reality which is they won't be there but i just think with the open door and all the mistakes have been made since then it would be very hard for nato to tell the russians, ukraine is off the board, even though that may reflect what things are de facto. >> mike, i'd like you to respond to that a little bit but also just to step back a little bit and think about, and let, gives a sense of what you think the administration's long-term vision for ukraine and for this crisis is. do they see it in the way that stage is present or do they have an alternative view? >> first of all, and i obviously

learned a lot from listening to steve on this and i've no doubt about his reading of ukrainian politics and public opinion or the history of nato's commitment to ukraine and trying to keep alive the option of potential nato membership. i realize it's hard to walk that back into my seem like too much of a concession or appeasement of putin. i guess, however, i think it got to the point where we have defined some way to address this question as an impasse in an otherwise potentially successful negotiation, you might be able to find some clever language. you might be able to say, we cannot imagine ukraine joining nato under current circumstances, and it would have to be some kind of a broader shift in the security environment, europe, creation of a super nato additional consideration or grouping that russia could be a part of as well. i don't know how you were this in a communiqué that you could, in other words, keep alive the option of ukrainian membership in long-term under different

circumstances without necessarily rolling it out but also making it clear to russia that was going to be more of a delay than just the five or 10 years that steve talked about is pretty much all they can take to the bank right now. if we got to the point where to find creative wording on that i would encourage us to try to find the creative wording rather than reduce it to yes or no, is it an option or not. secondly, in terms of america's long-term interest, i would want to turn the question back to you again because by the way, jeremy, we're glad to be back in the -- after brookings. he was always a thoughtful brainstorm on new ideas whether within or outside. so i know you have your own insights and thoughts on how the administration might want to handle this. but i would say the first instance, we obviously would like it not to be a major international crisis. we don't really need another. this sounds like is on the talk shows the next is to say, all obama wants to do is build this nation at home and withdraw and blah, blah, blah, and he's we.

that's not what i'm saying. i think most of us should want is to go away. we don't need is. there's nothing to be game for the united states by an escalating showdown. leave aside whether can be resolved peacefully in the end. the showdown produces nothing desirable. so the showdown i needs to be minimum that we need to get back to encouraging ukraine of whatever strikes its current leaders may have, economic reform which they haven't taken for 20 years. their economy is one of the worst performance in europe in the last 20 years by almost any measure. lee feinstein our good friend and former ambassador to poland pointed out in a recent article that 20 years ago poland and ukraine were sort of similar in size, and population come in gdp. and today polling has three times the gdp. and today, poland is ranked 50th in the world and good government and ukraine is ranked 155th. that was true under not just yanukovych but his predecessors. so my overall view and a big some the questions you could

follow up with, others may follow up with here, but defusing this and not making any more of a zero-sum showdown, the necessary is the core interest we have. there really is no other big thing to be gained here. >> okay, so we are about halfway through, which for those you keeping score, exactly right time to go to the audience. and please when you ask a question, identify yourself and make sure that you question ends with a question mark. >> thanks. i'm garrett mitchell and i write "the mitchell report," and i want to come back to a comment that steve made earlier about, with respect to how ukraine handles the situation which is do nothing stupid, no unforced errors. and put that into perspective

of, as fiona calls mr. putin, what -- i'm interested to know what acts of omission or omission -- call mission, i think you know what i mean. how can putin blow this? it seems to me he's already essentially said i don't care what the rest of the world thinks. i'm doing what is in the interests of russia nationals and that's the kind of person i am. so most of his downside, which seemed to me, i may be wrong, is domestic and political in nature. so i'm interested in knowing if there's a thought experiment that can be had here about what's going through his head and what, what actions might we

take that would have been basically say, you know, putin lost ukraine or lost crime year or he lost his political saliency in russia itself. >> let's take a couple more questions before we come back to the panel. there's a bunch of the hands in the back that i can barely see. >> i would just like to put on the table here that what we're talking about is nothing short of thermonuclear world war iii with this kind of dangers rhetoric with obama calling this an invasion went according to the 97 agreement with ukraine, russia can have up to 25,000 troops speech are you getting to a question? >> i am. >> i'm a little nervous. >> that's fine. >> it's not fun, it's a worry so worrisome please ask -- >> my question to you is, the u.s. and european union back a nazi terror six, to overthrow a government and is now talking

about, setting up a confrontation with russia where obama launches economic sanctions speak i think you're still missing the question on this. >> the question is, how are you guys justifying a joseph goebbels style propaganda of -- the will lead to world war iii? >> that's a question, i'll take the. one more question. there's a hand down in the back. >> this is based on ukraine but it goes to the other side of the road. does anyone out there think that china is watching this closely and it will affect what china does, vis-à-vis japan and the south china sea? >> i'm sorry, could you identify yourself as the? >> david woo. >> why do we come back to the panel with those questions and maybe we can start with you,

fiona, if you can handle the mr. putin question. >> thanks. well, the mr. putin question, the second question, are interrelated actually, what he might not think it, on first, first one. because we are indeed in a situation here of narratives. there's a certain depiction in the russian official media about what's happening and, of course, with a very different depiction here. although sometimes our depiction are all of the places will end also have to say pretty uninformed but i've been watching a lot of -- i'm stuck in an airport hours yesterday and i watch so many bizarre maps of ukraine going by and heard ukraine's real name was a buffer and all kinds of things. it just goes to show no one is either homework. it's so easy to fall into traps of the very simplistic depictions which is exactly what

people thrive on the want of a certain outcome in these kinds of circumstances. the narrative that i will second identify closure put forward here is a very strong narrative coming out of russia today on a whole host of outlets on the fairest tunnels in russia. i've been watching all of russia cable television resilient is a very, very striking narrative. we have to be careful about repeating that back again. let me just say the same kinds of extremist groups that we've seen operating in ukraine are here in the united states, ma i hear all the way across europe and also most worryingly for mr. putin, in russia itself. couldn't write from the beginning of his presence in back to 1990, 2000 has been concerned about extremists of all stripes including russian nationalist extremes. he said that expose of the. one of the reasons he pursued the war in chechnya to a very bitter end and one with a stone ongoing insurgency was to put down extremism as he said it. and he is dead and multiple

speeches over and over again that he is opposed to extremism of any form. he is playing to the nationalistic extremist outcome in russia because very worried about them. is extremely worried about the same kind of people who have been seen in groups on the streets in kiev and elsewhere, you can look in finland, norway, in the netherlands, in the uk. you can look in germany, anywhere and find right wing extremist groups purporting their own form of nationalism and infiltrating our tests across the globe. it doesn't matter where we look at thailand right now. let's be all honest about this. we all have our own extremists. in fact, in polling and social logical work, ma about seven-12% of any population at any time to bit of what is the crisis will hold extreme views and be prepared to take violent action in defense of those views but i know what a speaker. i've seen orange marches, i see nationalism of all kind of stripes. i've been in pitche pitched bat.

seoul summit stab in for me when i was an 11 year old during the troubles in ireland so i'm just saying, i may sound emotional. this is something we see across the globe everywhere. so you can put to rest the soul into a propagandist. it's easy to find extremist. putin has been trying hard to fight a yeltsin before them to keep using control. he keeps people like vladimir and one of russia's national section is political leaders in tight rein. they are meant to deflect people. these kind of extreme actions and keep them a car out of in political formats and away from the streets. putin has actually seen on the square just outside the kremlin violent, basically enter ethnic violence by soccer hooligans after the killing of basically an ethnic russians buy soma from north caucasus. it's time to speak out against it.

in cities all around russia. putin is very worried this will happen here. this is why ukraine is very important that it's very important for putin to show what can happen if someone has got a very strong fist. this is why we are in this situation right now. and this is where it could backfire because if this narrative gets out of control, if people see something different on the streets of ukraine they will start asking, hang on, what is this. putin has to keep his extremes on a very tight leash. this is why the could be blowback. the of the blowback is also where it comes to the issue of the eurasian union. putin has been trying to go, this is why ukraine has been important, this expanded customs union of russia, elvis and kazakhstan and also now are many. violence can actually basically work against us. and opinion polls about 80% of russians are against immigration and against migration. meaning people moving around the rest of the russian federation.

the eurasian union is supposed to be like the european union, open borders, free movement of peoples. 30% of the population russian is not very keen on this to get out of situations out of control. this doesn't bode well for the future of the eurasian union. if russia goes too far in the defense of russian speakers, what do they kazakhstan belarusians with the very population of russian speakers going to think about the implications of the eurasian union? so all of these different narratives are going to work against each other over the longer-term. this is what the difficulty becomes of these balancing act. you to keep control of your narrative. this is why it's important for the kinds of narratives like we just heard today to take precedence in russia on why narratives are being pushed back with a very aggressive offensive defense but we have to understand your that putin faces just like the rest of those, a very complex, very propagated political situation at home. is a big tent coalition but also includes a really lot of nasty

xenophobic views just as their present in any of the setting. he's got the same difficulties as our politicians have but in a more acute way. remember, russia and the russian language has a word attachment this is something that is as distant jus just like many other societies for a very long time. putin knows what extremes can do to help bring down the soviet union. something which he deeply regrets, bring down the russian state. they were at home at the time the russian revolution and begin with the collapse of the soviet union. he is trying to hold those off. >> looking at the question of extremist and anti-semitic narratives in ukraine and really putting evidence to the question, and would recommend that you very highly -- >> i would like to make a comment. i don't think you identified himself for just a couple of points. under agreement of the 1997 agreement with ukraine and russia, ukraine means -- rush is allowed to maintain certain

support units in crimea. that was never in dispute. there was no indication at all about the new ukraine government was going to challenge that. but yet agreement to not allow the russian military to seize the airport, other points of entries, check with all of the island and basically occupied island, peninsula in a military way. those all go well beyond what the agreement permitted the russian military to do. just on the question of a nazi coup, again that's the view one gets if one just follows russia today. certainly into demonstrators there were far right elements. but i think to tar the entire my don with that label is just simply wrong. if not insulting to the my don. are called it was there three weeks ago and said you saw people from middle class, we saw

families with kids. we saw a whole spectrum of ukraine after which was protesting not just about decision by mr. jacob which in november, not to pursue with the european union association agreement but it has broadened over the course but it was a demonstration against the corruption, and is gone markedly worse than in mr. yanukovych's tenure. so there was a broad group and the elements into that the american perspective we were uncomfortable with. but you can't use that to tar the entire group. finally, coming back to this question, how does mr. putin blow this. i think they're probably a couple -- right now i think a very strong position is probably still pretty good. i think you're a couple of he can blow this. there will be this referendum that would be conducted in crimea next week. i don't think there's any doubt what the outcome is going to be.

whether it's there or not is a different question. but then how does russia respond? if russia moves to a next crimea, i think that would be a mistake for mr. putin. the narrative they have tried to construct in crimea for this is about protecting ethnic russians, it gets overwhelmed by the fact that it's up to what it is, which is a naked landgrab. i think that could be a mistake. if there's military action, a week ago i think people are six days ago there was nervousness with the russian maneuvers north of eastern ukraine with the russians going into eastern ukraine. certainly the pretext that, in fact, mr. putin on tuesday, we will protect our russian compatriots, which is not just russian citizens. it's basically ethnic russians were ever they may be. military action either by design in eastern ukraine or if something happened in crimea. if crimea declares itself independent, and they may say to

the green military you have to leave and the ukrainian military says no, we are going to stay on our basis it is there a military contest? i think that could change the game in terms of how mr. putin is seen in ukraine, also in europe, but also perhaps back in russia. >> mike, this is a confusing episode for the chinese. can you give us some sense of how they might be doing at? >> i'll try my best. a couple of points. ..

when you look at both of these contacts together, it is again a reason you have to be careful about military rhetoric and signaling not just were to actually way of operation, but what you talk about threat. and so, i think this is a reason not to send too many u.s. navy ships into the black yet they have anything to do with the resolution of this problem. it is not a time to modernize nato's force. unlike the baltics or poland or someone or they wouldn't mind a few more people from other countries, other allies coming to visit. we don't have that entrée to call that a rapid reaction. in this case, it underscores the importance of being precise out what you are prepared to use military force for what you are

not prepared to use it for. you should let the line get too blurry. finally in some contrast to my next point come you have to make people pay a real price for things you're not prepared to go to work for. if there's no basis in international law and decent beat. so if russia, and access crimea in a week, there has to be a lasting pain. i personally would not consider it to be a major international crisis if necessary makes me sleepless night. russia has to suffer lasting is, especially through 10 and a center circle. i'd like to see us begin a conversation about what set of sanctions would be appropriate under those circumstances, certainly seizing the assets are freezing them indefinitely a lot of the inner circle is a good place to start. certainly preventing this crop of imperialist latter-day aggressors into westerners in the united states is a reasonable place to start.

this would be an action that would have to be on bad at some level. we would have to do things differently permanently and i can imagine russia belonging in the g8 after that kind of action. it's maybe better not not to have secretary cary or president obama say them right now because we get needed more about that and we know how he likes to act. we need to have these conversations at a more general level because there has to be a lasting price, just as the lasting price after marbury woke up in china had taken over night and had no intention of leaving. we don't have to necessarily doing abs assault, but there has to be a lasting price. >> i think in the way the united states has an obligation that goes back to 1994 budapest security assurances. when the ukrainians, after the soviet union crashed, ukraine had on its territory 1900 strategic nuclear warheads

targeted at the united states. a part of the price we agreed to pay where to pass us back to russia. we would give you security assurances on with the russians and british. commitment to your activity, independence, no use of force against you. the whole string which russia has violated. now there is a very important choice of words there. assurance is not guaranteed. that's because we give guarantees to nato allies. and that has a military connotation and we are very clear in 1994 we talk to the ukrainians. who said there's a recently used the word assurances. we are not prepared to give you a ticket or check it may not have the numbers, that has military on it. we are prepared to take a real interest and these commitments become threatened, we are prepared to react. the sorts of things mike's

talking about political, diplomatic, economic measures are appropriate in terms of our commitments we made with ukrainians in 1994. i would argue the way is to use political ladder and also financial and economic insistence that the monetary fund to help ukraine succeed. in a way, the best way to get revenge on what is happening and the three or four years now you look at ukrainians say here is a country the economist turned around now. they are growing. they have stable democratic institutions. that's the way it is in vladimir putin side. >> let's go back to questions. there. no, behind year. sorry. >> i come it's ever from a senior state.

just a quick question. i think, you know, there is a pattern here of bad behavior in moldova, georgia, now this. a lot of the reluctance of others in the west to join stripping russia at g8 membership, my view is we gave it to them, we may as well start that is energy. so have you given consideration to something that a lot of us have been thinking about and i heard bill richardson say the other day. what is the united states suffered to start selling natural gas to europe, ukraine, poland, to countries who have higher than 40%. germany is the highest, but higher than 40% dependence on russia. what is your reaction to having the administration offered to do that? there are no laws against it. all my thoughts against oil exports from the 70s, but not natural gas to start doing that in order to put not just ukraine

more days, but break the russian hold on a number of west europeans reluctant to join these more fervent economic sanctions because they know that russia has been over the barrel. no pan intended. >> i would just go to the person i just a microphone from. so right there. >> hi. i am don from saif. can you elaborate on this very realistic one that crimea in this invasion of russia crimea is not connected to ukraine, but much more beyond it. it is connected more to the geostrategic ambition of putin in the black sea at mediterranean. this time again the crisis in

ukraine the same way he took it in georgia when again it was an opportunity for him to take -- to improve his strategic position regarding the asian region and what would you think -- very realistic approach. is there any option for dealing to put ukraine and e.u.? >> okay, let's go to the back. all the way in the back so we can give our interns some exercise. >> thank you. jim johnson. i would like to follow-up on what what fiona was talking about, which is the role of through 10 as arbiter and the potentially less authoritarian, less command leather political situation in american media points. there is a growing body of thought that putin is a weak

dictator. as we're speaking here here, russian troops enter facts and ukrainian tv have physically stormed a ukrainian base, entered its premise says and assault vehicles have driven up to the base. the reason i raise this to you is there some thought here about how to deal with the russian regime that may not be in fact a solitary decision maker, where in fact local events on the ground and other interest groups around the putin may in fact be trying to control circumstances as much as the man himself. thank you. >> steve, let's start with you. can you address that energy? >> this is a great idea in terms of american energy exports. they're now in fact some reconfigurations of terminals eight years ago to receive lng, now being converted to export

lng, which we can do. there's a good argument to be made. it is time for the united states to reconsider whether we have the yen on exports of crude oil? i would argue this is actually very good way to push back against the russians. this is not hostile. this is not provocative. this is the united states make them smart economic decisions to allow us to export energy to global markets so we can draw more revenue in the united states. if that happens to put the prices down, oil goes down and gas gets less revenue, that's the way the market works. this would be something worth doing. it may be also this is something that may be happy in any case in terms of europe, which gets a quarter of its natural gas now from russia, taking a look at that because they birdied then twice the disputes between ukraine and russia. in 2006 and again in 2009 when

the contract expired, russia after negotiating for several days that we have no contracts, so we are turning the gas off to ukraine. the omega-3 upon you now is gas to go to europe. it saw the same price. a funny thing happened when the russians did that. note asking to europe. the only way to russians could completely cut ukrainians off was to stop exporting gas to europe. twice it happened and i think that is caused europe to think in a more serious way about energy security and russia's reliability as a supplier of energy. there is a potential right now because russia comes to being 60% and 70% to europe still goes through ukraine. that is a card ukrainians have not played in part because that gets very, very complicated. if this spins out of control, there's a chance there could be one more gas cut off and that would only encourage european

countries to take further alternate sources to the gas pump. that's the reason the russians have to be careful because when gas producers in western siberia, the gas can only go to europe. they don't have the connected pilots to >> to asia. they either export the gas or they sit on it. >> fiona ,-com,-com ma we just heard a couple different versions of mr. putin. i wonder if you can give us some sense. >> a comment on the energy first of all because this is something we hear a lot of. it is not something were going to be able to do by next month or next year. putin is prepared to press ahead with the lane of south stream pipeline across the black sea, which is also going to be complementing the pipeline already across the baltic sea, the north stream pipeline into germany to avoid ukraine as a transit route.

one prospect of all of this that we are talking about in terms of the gap, all terms come into play. we are all very concerned about global warming and when the russians don't have enough means to capture it to export, they fly up into the atmosphere. as much as 60 bcm flared across siberia. all kinds of dimensions of this. the energy tool is not so significant. i agree over the longer-term this isn't going to be option that's going to turn around anytime soon because export volumes have gone up in europe in spite of the capacity to basically substitute. in fact, what i've been coming as coal. coal from wyoming, montana being shipped out to germany and elsewhere. so we are playing in this game already, but it is a long game.

we can make the move, but in the short to medium term, it is a question of russia dominate and we have to start working on this. that gets into the questions as well about the strategic, other larger issues. putin is basically moving while he can. he may look weak over the longer-term. he may have difficulties of not being completely in charge. they might be able to set the calculation on energy and other issues. right now he's in a position of relative strength geostrategic wood because of the weakness of others elsewhere in kiev and elsewhere. and maybe a direct democracy and is popular elections, but not a robust democracy. president obama can't move with people biting at his ankles and clobbering them over the head. he can't be a leader because everyone is basically complain about his activity.

putin doesn't have numbers calling him an by members blocking his ability to do something on sanctions are pushing him to do something and take action. he doesn't have his media hounding him. it is essentially throwing him questions in praising him for his accomplishments. so he is actually right now able to move forward in a more decisive action. it is true that what happens on the ground is often beyond the purview of putin and there's often a lot of reaction. he's been very opportunistic here. he seen the weakness of others and is acting like he did with syria and there's also a lot of vested interest on the ground. people who make money out of these situations with members of the military who think he might be better off on the payroll to russia rather than ukraine may not be able to pay its bills.

time and time again in the 1990s, all the way through, it was highly apparent that there were about the lack of state initiative in the hope of getting reward. in the 1990s in kiev and ukraine, their actions or russian politicians political figures basically exploited with the opportunity out. we can actually say that it's definitely happening again. we remember in many respects back in the 90s in yugoslavia yugoslavia -- steve got to remember this very well. one of the local commanders thought here is an opportunity of going to try and do some team in the middle of the conflict and then i'll change the ground and there may be some greater opportunity here. i do think we have to be careful in interpreting events and remember there's lots of crises that have been from the ground

up and in the case of ukraine. the difference is putin is better positioned to take advantage of the crisis as we are. >> okay, one more round from the audience. >> thank you. i have some questions. first, in terms of legitimacy of the ukrainian authority, i am wondering, do you think, it is a good little regrettable to have an agreement occurred a little longer. and on this issue, what kind of compromise are you accepting from players and finally, if there is a compromise, what will the crisis affect featured big events like e.u., ukrainian and the may election? thank you.

>> i'm having some trouble seeing beyond the lies. maybe you could just pick a couple people. thank you. >> ricardo. i'm a visiting fellow here at brookings. a >> good choice. [laughter] >> a question for the whole panel. i was wondering where we can expand a bit of the discussions that include also the role of russia in issues of international concerns outside of europe. and so, what is in your opinion -- what impact does this crisis in europe going to have on russia's calculus commits interest to cooperate with west on, for instance, afghanistan or to a certain extent syria court uan? >> kathy, one more person in the

back. >> my name is contest that from "the new york times." i'd like to ask the panelists how realistic is the idea of having a confederation that should include russia, what are the object is that the senate should defend the competition with russia? [inaudible conversations] >> an extract of february 21 question. on february 21, after three very violent days in kiev, there was an agreement reached between yanukovich, the former president and the three main opposition leaders. and it was what passed for actually you had the german, polish and french foreign ministers they are working overnight to try to encourage this. you also had the ambassador from

the russian federation as well. there was a draft done and it was initialed by yanukovich in the three opposition leaders and then the four others, german, french and polish ambassadors that initialed the draft as witnesses. there is then a period of consultation. they came back and finalize the document time. he did not have the signature. when you see the final document, there's only seven. i understand this came after he consulted with moscow and the southlake russia said no to that agreement. would that agreement have been able to go forward? was pretty clear in the three major elements. it called for a national unity government. it called for revising the

constitution to go back to 2004 version, which had more of a balance of power to the president on one hand and the prime minister and parliament on the other end called for removing a presidential elections which were going to be march of next year or two sometime this fall. the last point is very hard. to view was wait a minute, yanukovich ran the previous government. 70 demonstrators have been killed. many by snipers and the view is we don't see this guy being an office for one more day, let alone until fall. i am not sure whether that agreement would have been -- whether would have withstood a challenge to the demonstrators. but we never got to that point uk's mr. yanukovich signed the agreement, walks out, what actually stayed outside in kiev,

packed it valuables inside. turned out very briefly the next day and a short filmed interview where he was still his the president did he disappear for another six days until he turned up and gave a press conference last week in russia. as far as i know, he has not been seen then. the agreement kind of fell apart because president yanukovich advocated. there's a certain amount of ad-libbing we really had no executive authority. at that point, yanukovich saturday accepted the resignation of his prime minister who i believe have been on to moscow. it basically took the steps did including the active president. i agree i think this is all consistent with the parliamentary rules and ukraine. it does underscore the

importance of underscoring the presidential election in may and having it be free and fair in the way that gives ukrainian account and that we now have a democratically elected leader who then having to correct legitimacy but the acting president does not. getting that is very, very important. >> co not come at, how is this affecting prospects for that? >> they talk about the confederation with russia. so there's two different ways that question could be answered. the most to get a qualification, there is discussion about turning ukraine into a federation that is happening right now that's being pushed from russia and one solution to the problem to crimea and many other regions including parts of eastern ukraine at the maximal autonomy, which dilutes the influence and changes the

current unity research at the ukraine and output increase in many respects the potential of russia. that is sent to the ukraine has been rather unpopular for very long time since the 1990s. it's likely because there's some diversions to be even within the regions and they really showed that. there is no such thing as the average ukrainian. even within regions, there's a viewpoint within those regions. ukraine like any other country, like united states itself has regional different station. inside the different state or entity. that's actually very difficult issue. duration union discussion now has reached a different level. this is again the customs union idea of bringing ukraine into the belarusian caveat and albanian customs union. the idea that was initially put

forward on the part of the russian was between the regime that union and the european union to find a way of creating another high-level trade negotiation. some variation of that is now all kinds of gaming defusing over competing trade? the idea of duration union of the european union association of event, trade and investment partnerships, transpacific partnerships are all coming out of the idea that the wto has cried to a halt. all the trade negotiations with know-how going nowhere and that may be a regional bloc could provide some way forward, now see in the regional blocs are more likely to be leading to confrontation and more confusion. so now there is a discussion going on about how to make it across that? had wi-fi in different ways of finding out really what the main

thoughts received by the russians and others by creations of these blocks. it is entirely possible that there could be some more discussion of our eurasian union and the european union association agreements taking down the rhetoric and having a very straightforward, very pragmatic discussion about the contacts and confrontation over this. ricardo asked about the impact of further afield and i think mike in particular could talk about this in afghanistan. from one perspective there's a great deal of confrontation on this year yet and from because we still have the blocking of the envoy into crimea over the past few days in the u.n. monitoring russian about the mother that was the case in georgia. old discussion about syria and iran are taking place in the u.n. framework. we do need to have russia and

the u.n. context given the security council role for the syrian and iranian negotiations and discussions of the peace process or the seriousness civil war and the negotiations over the nuclear program. this is going to be a really difficult item. >> an excellent question, ricardo and very important. a lot of this on his pl and pl and certainly in broader political debate figure out how to punish putin for what is done and mush of every month, but we also need to calibrate it. this really cuts to the strategic core of why they need to be calibrated responses. for example, if putin asks for crimea in a referendum in a couple weeks, we need to have the targeted sanctions i mention, but not yet talk about preventing russian companies from having access to western

banks for russian firms prevented from having access to western oil markets and gas markets. they decide the allies can't survive without some of that russian fuel, we also need to keep a certain degree of restraint and our own reaction because their other stakes here. putin decides to take our firm but limited response and escalate further, we may wind up in an uglier place. then you have to have options and other core equities may be. the kind of proposals i mentioned going after putin and top officials and cronies are targeted sanctions on their travel and finances has the advantage of being hard-hitting against then, but limited in a broader strategic sense for the reasons you mention, partly because as bad as the crisis has been so far in this terrible that would see the annexation of crimea under the auspices proposed, there hasn't been widespread violence in the limit down operations have been fairly

geographically specific so far. i think we need to incentivize putin not to escalate. that would be my overall response to your question. >> would back him again if you're keeping score at the moderator, we've had the time exactly. >> is also looking good today. three for three. >> i did very well here and the rest of the panel. we've got an excellent panel. so please join me in thanking the panelists. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> at this event comes to close them a quick reminder if you missed any of the discussion, and is available on our website. go to c-span.org. earlier today come with live coverage of the conservative total action conference or in the washington d.c. area. join us tomorrow for the wrapup of the cpac meeting. live at 1240 eastern.

>> suffice it to say, most of health policy really is the house policy at all. it is essentially budget policy. and so, the congress just docs on so many of the big issues and ends up putting together something in the parliaments of washington might he called a patch. maybe it is an extension. maybe it's called a stopgap, but the fact is that docs the big issues. he repeatedly docs the big issues, particularly on medicare when you have 10,000 people eligible for medicare every day, there is a very real cost attached with that. so now, the challenge is to try to find a way to move beyond basic station on budgeting. it would be one thing if it was

found budget policy, but so often as i've indicated, don't get at the structural kinds of issues and move beyond this sort of lurch from one kind of budget calamities to another and come up with something both you policy.

>> and now, treasury secretary jack lew testifies you for the finance committee on the president's 2015 budget request was a clear path forward for economic covering growth. from wednesday, and this is about two hours and 10 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning to all and the committee will come to order. before we begin today, i want to assure everyone that you did not accidentally walk into a meeting of the energy and natural resources committee, which i use to share.

our friend, max baucus is off to do an outstanding job in china and this is still the senate committee on finance with a story history. now, in the story department, i learned recently that senator hatch was an outstanding basketball player in high school. and i've learned through my services that he had a great one-handed set shot. he's even in the baldwin high school hall of fame for basketball. i played a bit of basketball myself. so senator hatch and i may try to figure out a way to get a regular finance committee pickup game going except we are probably going to see if we can find some parking rules so that the young members don't make us look bad. i also want to welcome senator warner to the finance committee. senator warner demonstrates

continually that our government can have a head and a heart and we are lucky to have his business expertise and bipartisanship on fiscal issues. [inaudible] >> the record will so show. i'm going to be briefed and of course be honored to share this with all of you. this committee is to go to place for tackling america's big domestic challenges. senator hatch and i am tend to preserve the committee history of addressing these vital issues in a bipartisan way. in addition, the finance committee is the principal committee in the senate with jurisdiction over international trade. therefore, we are now looking at every possible economic love her to pressure russia to his death back from its unprovoked incursion into crimea. the fact is, russia has been

distantly used trade as a cudgel to only its neighbors. the committee numbers will want secretary lew to tell us how the administration can best marshaler country's economic might and defense of the people of ukraine. back on the domestic front, the committee has before several issues of the date stamp and not. those issues replace the badly flawed medicare system four.there is coming acting bipartisan tax reforms that make the tax code more fair and more progrowth, shoring up our transportation system and helping american workers compete in tough global markets. we are very pleased that the secretary here today to discuss the president's 2015 budget. this conversation is different than it's been in recent memory because this year the congress is actually operating under a bipartisan budget agreement. the government isn't closing down. so there's an opportunity to pay

the rent is budget battles and to focus on the big challenges before the country. i would submit that the top challenge is sustaining and expanding our middle class. today, america has what i call a dollar tree neiman marcus economy as has been noted in several publications, the bargain stores are doing well in the high-end retailers can't keep enough expensive items in stock. stores that cater to the middle class are hurting. every one of our big economic challenges japan for sustaining and growing the middle class. just briefly at what check off a few areas where we can prove that cause. the first is innovation, whether the tax code or other actions, innovation and research can turn creative startups into thriving businesses is more good paying, high skill jobs. that is why i plan to move quickly to extend a number of expired tax provisions such as

the research and development credit. over the long-term, the credit through comprehensive tax reform could be made even more useful for american startups. the obama administration budget includes proposals for this is tax reform. i believe a broader approach to comprehensively over cause to do more to give all americans, especially the middle class the opportunity to get ahead. we are going to work in a bipartisan way with the administration closely on that pattern. the second priority had to be savings. the vast majority savings are delivered to the tax system and it's time for policies that give all americans the opportunity to accumulate wealth. the press not from a proposal to help workers save during a seat the union in the includes an affair called otto ira. there is an additional idea that ought to be an. as has been noted previously,

establishing a savings account for american -- for every american child has had deep conservative recent significant bipartisan support. the idea of helping young people, particularly ones of modest income be part of the opportunity to accumulate wealth in this country is especially important in such accounts could open doors to higher education, homeownership and retirement security. third, the committee will discuss on education. another area but the tax code doesn't pass the smell test. your 15 separate incentives to free the cost of education and each has its own set of mindnumbing rules and definitions. there are ways to improve disincentives not just in the short-term, but for the long haul through real tax reform that more americans can secure it the ability that an affordable high-quality education can give.

forthcoming can't have big-league economic growth with little they can for structure. the committee is now working to provide fresh thinking that can pull some of the billions of dollars to private-sector capital and into infrastructure investments that spark new job growth. america will soon need a solution to keep the highway trust fund solvent. we are going to go prospecting colleagues for bipartisan ideas in both areas. in closing, the committee will focus on other issues outside our borders besides ukraine. one aspect of the trade agenda for a number of colic has spoken about his currency manipulation. the major challenge confronting american workers and manufacturers. i look forward to working with secretary lew in the department to ensure country is doing all he can to address misaligned currencies. finally, secretary lew defeat part for a moment from your portfolio, i would like to publicly thank the president for adopting a plan that senators

create a minute and i for the finance committee and senator richard duvall develop to reform federal wetlands policy prior to oregon and throughout the west has got bigger and hotter, but our policies have not kept out that mr. system is going to allow us to get more value out of this in my view also helping in a bipartisan way to address the challenge of these natural disasters. when we turn now to senator hatch for his comment and also again express our thanks to secretary lew for his experience. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and secretary, we are happy to have you here. i want to welcome our distinguished friends from virginia, senator warner to the committee. we are very pleased to have you in the committee. with your business achromycin could be a great deal of help to all of us on this committee. before i begin my statement,

mr. chairman i like to thank this opportunity to welcome you as the new chairman of our committee. already it hit the ground running and i think you're setting a very good example for all of us and i really enjoyed the time we spent together up until now and i look forward to a long term working relationship with you. hopefully we can do even better for this committee as the future occurs. and for those who don't know, senator wyden always plans ahead and thinks about future opportunities and challenges. for example, a decade ago senator wyden selected to close sisera committee offices. if you look down the holy city oregon state flag. it is unique among a nation state flags and at the front and back parts are different from one another. on the front is the state seal and on the back there is a depiction of a beaver. this demonstrates typical of oregonians to think outside the box. senator wyden is no exception.

i'm certain he will bring his unique talents to the big job of sharing this great committee. mr. chairman, look forward to working with you in this new capacity, writes out of the gate onto thank you for the hearing. it is very, very important to have secretary lew here and chat is tearing up as obama's fiscal year 2015 budget proposals. again, thank you the secretary lew for appearing before us today. to begin, i'd like to know some problems with the process for this proposed budget has been unveiled. first of all, we received the budget yesterday. a full month past the statutory deadline. but budget information we did receive yesterday is incomplete. for example, when you look at the appendix, there is often referenced resection called analytical is, unquote. those perspectives are nowhere to be found. i assume the rest of the budget

information is forthcoming. still, we can only wonder why it is being released a few pieces at the time. the administration appears to be approaching the hearing in the same way as we did not receive senator lew sprit testimony until late last night, which was less than helpful. when we get past the process issues in the substance of the presidents budget, we see the administration appears to be short on new ideas. indeed this budget consists largely of proposals for president obama's past budget, which is surprising given that none of them have received an affirmative burden congress. his proposals represent a continuation of three familiar things. first, we say the administration continued assistance we can issue press. he by adopting more tax policies that grow the federal government. second, there are proposal centered on the apparent belief that ever more income redistribution will somehow lead to economic growth and job

creation. finally, we see another tax reform is a process of raising taxes in order to feel more federal spending while closing whenever the administration deems to be a loophole in the tax code. based on economic exceptions, the administration believes his proposals will reduce their height debt to gdp ratio. to get there and to help fulfill its tax objectives, the budget envisions well over $1 trillion of additional taxes in the face of a persistently sluggish economy. i think that bears repeating president obama's budget contains more than a trillion dollars in proposed tax hikes. the administration claims it has for years now these additional revenues needed to restore

fiscal responsibility and reduce the deficit is part of a quote, unquote unbalanced approach. however, we need to look at the facts. let's consider the deficit reduction occurs since the high-tech as a watermark achieved fiscal year 2009. from a deficit of over $1.4 trillion in that year, the deficit 03 still has 680 billion in fiscal year 2013. of the 736 and deficit reduction of the 670 came from increased revenue and only 66 billion for reduced outlays. so in terms of budget realizations, rather than promises for the future, less than 9% of the deficit reduction between 2009 and 2013 camper reductions in spending. the vast majority came from in greece revenue remarkably in the face of that history, the administration's insatiable desire for higher taxes the supercross more tax types with

more spending. this simply the tax hikes envisioned in the presidents budget are not what our struggling economy needs. unfortunately, while having pledged to focus like a laser on jobs, this administration decided over a past five years to focus on next inning government but they failed stimulus. the affordable care act and initiatives like the dodd-frank act that is going to be eccentric in his community banks. none of these efforts laid the foundation for economic growth. sadly the budget offered this week does not present a vision for such growth in the future. instead this appears to be a political document designed to shore up support in the presence of left-leaning base in an election year. this, needless to say is disappointing giving all of the real challenges our nation continues to face. as you see, mr. chairman, we

have a lot to discuss today when it comes to proposals in the budget and their other issues at the treasury department that warrants your attention today. for example, i find it incredible that the challenges our nation is facing, the treasury department has decided to place distinctly not a 501(c)(4) organization for scrutiny near the top of it mistreated agenda. as with the budget, it appears the policies are driving the decision-making when it comes to promulgating regulations through treasury. the politics are actually driving this. in my view, it would be useful for the administration to focus on growth in the economy and jobs and how the president's party welfare of the next election. what those concerns in mind come i look forward to today's hearings and onto thank you, mr. chairman and welcome again arbiter of this committee. >> thank you, senator hatch and

particularly your focus on the bipartisanship we've been talking about is especially helpful. secretary lew, we are glad to have you. we will put your remarks in the record. he is perceived as you wish. >> thank you very much, chairman wyden, for the opportunity to testify on the budget. i want to add my personal congratulations to chairman as he began his first year in a chairman of the finance committee. we worked together for so many decades. it is an honor to be a witness. >> when i had a full head of hair and rugged good looks. >> also a pleasure to welcome senator warner here as the committee's newest member. before i begin, let me say a few words about the situation in ukraine. as president obama has explained in no uncertain terms, the steps russia has taken to violate korean sovereignty and territorial integrity or breach of international law. at this time, we look into a wide range of options and ways

to increase russia's political and economic isolation. our ultimate goal is to de-escalate the situation in ukraine. as the ukrainian government prepares for elections in may, it is critical of the international community support efforts to restore economic stability. i've spoken with ukrainian prime minister a number of times now and is told me his government is ready to adopt economic reforms. the international part nurse and an assistance package that will help the ukrainian government implement reforms and to restore financial stability and return to economic growth. the united states has developed a package of bilateral assistance focused on meeting ukraine's most pressing needs. the package will include a $1 billion guarantee an ims legislation, which will support the ims capacity to lend additional resources to ukraine and help preserve continued u.s. leadership within the support

institution at a critical time. while the united states not increase their total financial commitment to the imf are you proving the 2010 reforms, it is important to note every dollar the night this contributes to the imf, other countries provide $4 more. at a time when the u.s. is at the forefront of calls and urging the fund to play a central inactive responder role, it is imperative your passage of legislation now so we can show support in this critical moment and preserve our leading influential voice in this institution. i want to be clear that even as we deal with the folding of events in ukraine, we continue to focus on the central objective expanding opportunity for all americans. over the past five years in congress are numbered port things to make our country stronger and better positioned for the future. since 2009, the economy has steadily expanded. our businesses have added 8.5 million jobs over the last 47 months. the housing market has improved

and rising housing prices are pulling millions of homeowners from underwater. at the same time, household and business ballot sheet steel, experts growing in manufacturing making gains. the truth is that the president said in the state of the union, we are more ready to meet demands of the 21st century than any other country on earth. nevertheless, our economy is strong against imposed by the worst recession of our lifetimes and while we are back on her feet, we are not yet where we need to be. everyone here understands that. the question is, what are required to do about it? presidents budget lays out a clear path to move us in the right direction. not only fulfills the pledge should make this the year of action, it offers a framework for long-term prosperity and competitiveness. the budget addresses critical issues facing the nation. it recognizes for corporate profits have been hitting all-time highs in the middle class wages have a plateau with our term unemployment and ongoing challenge.

while the stock market and paying for college is more than a dream for millions of families. it recognizes while national security threats are shifting to bring the war in afghanistan, soldiers military in our economy. while work is being done to put the final pieces of financial reform the place, reforms that the vocal role have made our financial system stronger in engine for economic growth once again. solutions in the budget flow from a frank assessment of these challenges. they are carefully designed to show choices we make to increase opportunity and bolster the middle-class. for instance, cornerstone of proposals is to expand the earned in an tax credits that reaches more childless workers. we know the tax credit is not the most effective tools for fighting poverty and attempt to adjust his hood is a better job of rewarding hard work. the tax cut which would go to

more than 13 million americans will be offset by any tax loopholes to let high-income professionals working in the payroll taxes that other workers pay. another initiative to make a difference for hard-working men and women is my ra. this program will be available this year and allow americans to start building a nest egg that simple, safe and can never go down in value. while this budget puts forward initiatives, calls on congress to reinforce growth enhancing strategies by passing measures the comprehensive immigration reform and trade promotion authority. even if it does these things come and make no mistake, the budget is serious about voting on the success we've made together to restore fiscal responsibility. the fact of the matter is the share of gdp has fallen by more than half since the president took office, marking the most rapid decline in the deficit since the period of demobilization following the end of world war ii. today we are charting a course

that will push below 2% of gdp by 2024 and rate in the national debt relative to the size of the economy over 10 years. last year the president put forward speaker potter and the budget and reflects the vision of the path forward. the measures in the budget are the best way to strengthen our economy now. the president is firmly committed to making tough choices to tackle challenges and our fear about solutions represent a comprehensive pressure strengthening the nation's financial footing. they make detailed responsible changes to medicare while eliminating loopholes and subsidies that do not help our economy and scrapping tax breaks for those who do not meet them. increasing fairness in our tax code is not about our nation's fiscal health. it's also jittering room so we

can strengthen the foundation of our economy for years to come. that means helping to create more jobs by repairing art for structure, increasing manufacturing, boosting research and technology in fostering domestic energy production. a in a string and americans to get jobs by promoting a print ships and upgrading worker training programs. improving education system by expanding access to preschool in modernizing high schools. i harbor pays off by creating more promise and increasing college affordability and minimum we should $10.10 an hour in exit to inflation. in closing, let me point out this budget represents a powerful jobs growth and opportunity plan. it is carefully designed to make our economy stronger while keeping our fiscal house in order. what's more, and offers washington a real chance to work together. as everyone on the committee knows, for too long brinksmanship in washington has been a drag on economic growth. we've seen a significant amount

of bipartisan progress in recent months and i thought to improve economic momentum. some cynics say is fleeting. some call it election-year posturing. but i don't agree. i believe we can keep finding common ground to make a difference and i believe we can continue to get serious things done on behalf of the american people by working together. thank you very much and i look forward to answering your questions. >> secretary lew, we look forward to working with you. begin with the ukraine if we might. it appears that vladimir putin factions in the ukraine represent a last gasp for grander. his efforts to expand russia's footprint will work to further isolate the country called home. .. the country he calls home. yesterday they launched an in r inter-continental missile. when was the last time a russian company launched a new automobile line or internet

company that could compete on the world stage. to me, his efforts to demonstrate power through 20th century imagery only demonstrates the weakness russia is showing under mr. putin's leadership. senator hatch and i have zeroed in on a number of areas particularly in the trade domain we think we can promote sensible policies to hold mr. putin accountedable, such as insuring russia's world trade agreements are fully enforce. what do you think your bestd economics are at this point andu hell gu he might evaluate the proposals. i've almost lost count on all of the ideas that have