that the american people understand that this is somebody's child. and that we don't condition whether or not we make the effort to try to get them back. >> as the president and other world leaders met in europe for the separatist militia continued attacks in eastern ukraine escalating the violence along the russian border. this coming as the g-7 summit place in brussels. here's a headline from the british guardian. guardian. g7 leaders warn russia of wide ranging sections over ukraine and putin is told to recognize the elections and stop the arms crossing the border and cease support for the separatist groups within weeks. reporting western leaders have announced that the russian president but a near putin had a matter of weeks to stop destabilizing ukraine and seek a settlement with his new counterpart in kiev or face much

wide-ranging sanctions. that's coming as the g-7 summit in brussels for which russia was excluded for the first time in six years and was taking place. >> and on capitol hill, the senate foreign relations committee looked at the political situation in ukraine following last month's elections. that's coming up next on c-span2. also today a bipartisan agreement was reached in the senate on a bill that aims to address some of the problems that the va medical facilities. and president obama's pick to head the department of health and human services sylvia burwell was approved by the senate 78 to 1724 republicans voting for the nominee. she will take over as the health secretary pleasing kathleen sebelius. russia as the united states is a nation which believes in its mission. in our missions are pretty

similar. we believe in freedom, we believe in this living our values which suddenly disappear. but it was still there and so the biggest idea for russia all those years was the victory day. that is a remain national holiday. and that's what unites the whole nation is the fight against the session. and how it was presented to the nation by president putin is that in ukraine, those are sponsored fascists came to power. and he illustrated that with the former ukrainian army who were

alive and with us during world war ii and so he used it to prove that these are fascists who are fighting against both russian and ukrainian nation. so it is a misinterpretation that we are looking just to protect russians were the russian minorities. no. for the overwhelming majority of the russians, we are continuing world war ii. and we are liberating, really liberating ukraine from the fascist threat. senate foreign relations committee hearing on the

political and security situation in ukraine following the recent presidential elections in the country. witnesses included former u.s. ambassador to ukraine, plus former congresswoman jane harman that heads up the wilson center. senator bob menendez of new jersey chairs the committee. >> good morning. a hearing on the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. i want to welcome the end of the queue for taking the time to share the perspective of the committee on the development in ukraine which appear only slightly less than they did in act i of the crisis. now we are beginning the act number two of the successful election of a president by the ukrainian people and internationally certified election which is a major victory for the struggle for freedom. past elections have exhibited stark divisions between east and west, significantly the president elect won the district from one end of ukraine to the

other. it seems clear that the events of the past year and russia's violation of their sovereignty unified them as never before. while it is clear that the president has a mandate, the challenges that he confrontchals are daunting. we must rebuild the economy weakened by the previous corruption while countering in the east. we are committed as a nation to working with the new government and the people of ukraine to consolidate democracy and economy and help ukraine stand up to the tactics of its neighbor to the east. presidenpresident putin continuo direct events in ukraine seeking to undermine the government and format discord and east with a goal seeking a long-term ability to control and direct ukraine politics and policies. as catherine the great said i have no way to defend my borders except to extend them at the

point that seems to have renewed the poignancy today. to count to the 18th century mindset, i welcome president obama's announcement this week of a european reassurance initiative that will increase our presence across europe and build the capacity of our friends suggest georgia and ukraine and moldova so that they can work along the united states and nato as well as provide for their own dissent. in my view there are three things that are crucial for the future. the president must build a government that is capable, transparent, accountable, and strong enough to meet both foreign and domestic challenges. before indirect forces elsewhere in the third, the ukrainian economy must be resurrected including the decreasing the energy dependency on russia. but at the end of the day the

creation of viable, successful ukraine capable of preserving its sovereignty is an unfinished legacy of the cold war and it will take time. it is a necessary goal that requires the commitment and cooperation of the congress, the executive branch and our allies working together. with that, let me turn over to senator corker for his remarks. >> thanks to the witnesses. i know who will be helpful to us especially the last one that came in well dressed and looking sharp. i do want to congratulate the people of ukraine for the election that just occurred. i know that we had a lot of observers including i think jane harman that just walked in and several people, many of our colleagues. many of us had the opportunity to meet over a cliff of time and i think it's the person today.

there are tremendous issues to overcome, and ukraine for getting the external effect that russia is having on the country and the tremendous production issues and energy issues, democracy issues, human rights issues, all kinds of issues for any leader to have difficulty undertaking not to speak of the external issues i just mentioned. there is no question that russia played a role in eastern ukraine. there is no question that they continue to play a role in eastern ukraine and obviously, it looks like they are, you know, back and forth between trying to negotiate with the government and create alliances and at the same time to continue to destabilize the country. so i look forward to what our witnesses have to say relative to what our policy should be going ahead. i know there was an announcement today where cameron and the

president announced the need for the new sanctions in russia. i look forward to hearing what the witnesses had to say about that and i noted a number of us have joined together pushing for that kind of thing. but the fact is we have tremendous challenges and i know just having come from eastern europe that stability in that region is paramount right now as we have seen russia doing what it's done so we not only have the issue of ukraine to contend with and i know that you will enlighten us in that regard also, the need to show tremendous strength and perseverance ... to eastern europe in general so very important issue in the great geopolitical significance. thank you all for being here and i look forward to questions. >> let me introduce our panelist, the honorable jane harman president and ceo o prese

woodrow wilson international center for scholars and former colleague in the house. we welcome you back to the committee and we also have to former ambassador to ukraine who is now with the brookings institution and the third panelist assistant for national security adviser james jeffrey nava distinguished visiting fellow at the institute and next president of the international republican institute and a former ambassador to tanzania and someone that is no stranger to the committee that the democratic institute. i will advise you that all of your statements will be included in the record. without objection i would ask you to summarize them in about five minutes or so and we will proceed in the order in which i introduced you. so jane, you are first. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member corker.

both of you are dear friends of mine and colleagues. and also, friends of the wilson center. and i appreciate being invited. every one on the lineup is a close friend and i was very proud to be a member in the double -- delegation in ukraine. ukraine. its the eighth i have observed. we do this brilliantly and it matters to have them in countries and in teams with them who can get around and in that connection on the day before the election in ukraine, my small group headed by the former secretary of state madeleine albright met all of the leading candidates and he impressed me as a man capable of leading his country and it was impressive to see his enormous victory. wouldn't a lot of the members in the senate like a victory in the crowded field avoiding a runoff. at any rate let me make brief

comments. this is the third chance to get it right. they got it wrong after the wall came down and they got it wrong after the revolution. a series of governments were corrupt and not confident. this is chance number three and i think that it will either work or it will be three strikes and you're out and i don't think that ukraine will get a chance like this again. second point, we need to help ukraine and president obama announced in the reports to help them about ukraine has to help ukraine. this is the chance for them to take responsibility for their future and i do think that many ukrainians with whom we spoke get that. i think there are five things that the president this saturday needs to do. one is go to east ukraine and tell the folks there -- he said he's going to do this -- he favors some form of decentralization that is

consistent with one ukraine and that he wants them to serve in his government. the acting -- the current acting president was in east ukraine the other day and i thought i was a gooitwas a good move. second, include the crowd that the demonstrated so bravely over six months in the new governme government. some of them want to serve and to some of the current government were in there and this has to be a different movie from egypt. the people who were brave and courageous and wanted to change their country have to be included in the government. government. and force anticorruption law. there are some on the books as they need to be stronger make them stronger. certainly it's true that he himself is an only dark as our host of the folks in the senior leadership positions in ukraine but this is his chance to show that he's going to lead his country and not just had his bank account. account. a symbol and a plus economic

team from inside and outside the countries of the steps can be taken to qualify for the eu alone in fifth, welcomed the dias brought. there are very many smart and while the ukrainians that can help their country. then comes the tough issue and you mentioned this, senator, what to do about the russians and the unrest in the east part of ukraine. i think it is time for a united voice. all of the teams to call on president putin to stop most of the violence. i'm assuming there are some that we can't stop, but i know the chechens and others are crossing the russian border in their trucks with arms. and those folks have to come home, the border has to be policed and the flow of arms have to be stopped and he should tell the separatist to lay down their arms but second we do need more sanctions and i would say that the sanctions against the

banking industry and economic industry and the energy -- the economic sector and the banking sector have to be imposed and i know that europe is reluctant but chancellor angela merkel seems to be open to this and president obama should press to have the sanctions in place if president putin doesn't respond in the shortest period of time to stop the violence in east ukraine. thank you. >> mr. chairman, senator corker, distinguished members thank you for the opportunity to talk about the ukraine and russia crisis and the u.s. policy response. mr. chairman i have submitted a statement i will now summarize. ukrainians went to the polls in large numbers in an election of the national democratic standards. he won the resounding victory. the president elect now faces significant challenges. he must find a way to manage eastern ukraine or clashes

continue between the separatists and government forces. he must oversee implementation of the economic reforms in ukraine's program with the international on the terri fund. he must address the questions of decentralization of the power. he also faces the major challenge of dealing with russia. unfortunately by all appearances, vladimir putin remains opposed to the desire to grew closer. he continues the policy that moscow has pursued since its illegal occupation of crimea. russia seeks to destabilize the government. there is no evidence moscow has used its influence with the separatists in ukraine east to urge them to de-escalate the crisis. to the contrary, russia appears to support and encourage them to read numerous reports indicate arms of supplies and fighters flew from russia into ukraine. russia has legitimate interest in ukraine to be sure, but those interests do not mean it should resort to force, territory or

support separatism. the u.s. policy response seems to have three sectors. first the administration altered the legitimacy of the government in kiev and targeted to help ukraine reform. one area washington should do more is military assistance. the ukrainian military needs help in strengthening its defensive capabilities. units on the field could use equipment such as tents. the decision to provide body armor, night vision goggles and communication equipment is welcome if overdue. the united states should also offer counter intelligence. it's also appropriate to consider providing the anti-armor weapons and portable air defense systems particularly since the military after the u.s. and nato request many of its stocks. the second u.s. policy is aimed to be sure the unions who are more nervous about the intention following crani crimea. they have the objectives of

reassuring the allies of the commitments to their defense and underscoring the commitments to moscow. on tuesday the president proposed a 1 billion-dollar program to increase the u.s. military presence and provide expedited funding for that. the third sector in the policy has sought to penalize russia with the goal of affecting the change in the course on ukraine. washington has ratcheted down the vibthe five other rogue rels and thin the leaders and as mr.n met in brussels. the u.s. government has worked with the union to impose the financial sanctions on the selected russian individuals and entities into the sanctions to date although modest if you do have an impact. projections of the gdp growth in 2014 have been reduced and bloomberg reports that no russian company has been able to sell the foreign currency bonds since march. the sanctions have failed in their primary political purpose and russia has not significantly

altered the course on ukraine and more robust sanctions are justified and should be applied. these could include targeted visa and financial sanctions, applying targeted sanctions on the financial sector of russia beginning with the sanction of at least one major russian financial institution as opposed to smaller pockets thanks and walking western companies from new investments to develop oil and gas fields. in considering sanctions, washington should be smart. where it makes sense to use a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. the u.s. should avoid measures that are counterproductive. washington should also encourage kiev to put together a package for the internal divisions. these could provide a means for stabilizing ukraine. the big question, however, is whether they will be prepared to support a settlement. mr. chairman, senator corker, members of the committee to the crisis will likely continue for some time. the challenges facing kiev or stabilization won't come easy. but we should remember that

ukraine has rich economic potential and intelligent people. many people seem to recognize they have a precious second chance to turn their country around after the missed opportunity of the orange revolution. u.s. policy should aim to maximize the prospects that this time ukraine will succeed. this will be important for the people in ukraine and a more stable and secure europe. also to the moscow policy that would be to see ukraine and several years time looking more and more like poland. a normal commit democratic rule of law and increasing the european state. thank you for your attention. >> thank you. ambassador jeffrey. >> thank you very much mr. chairman, senator corker, members of the committee. again, he very much appreciate being here today. the russian aggression against ukraine is the most serious challenge to the international order since 9/11. as such, this crisis requires that action at three levels. the first of the immediate steps that had been taken and are being taken to deal with the

phenomena itself as the acting national security advisor with president bush during the 2008 invasion of georgia i believe that the administration under the somewhat similar circumstances have done all in all a good job dealing with the russian incursion into crimea and now eastern ukraine. it is not a children's russia militarily on the ground, and i think that is a wise decision given the stakes, given the difficulty of deploying u.s. troops. on the other hand it has used economic sanctions and every diplomatic tool possible and in particular brought along and initially recalcitrant europe, and this will be a problem going forward as well but the administration is trying its best on that. thanks to both these efforts by the international community and more importantly, as my colleagues have noted, the well

of the ukrainian people represented in the elections and the willingness of people even in eastern ukraine to support a unified and sovereign ukraine. russians have had to change their tactics somewhat. with strict military aggression, more indirect forces. but nonetheless as my colleague just said, the strategy that putin is following remains the same to destabilize ukraine and ensure that it can never be a sovereign country able to choose its own future, which ivy league would be what the west to defend itself against falling under the russian persuasion. the bus at the second level, we need to look at additional steps. the administration has announced a number of good news this week. the senate and the draft preventing the russian aggression bill has come up with others. i have my own. i will just touch on a few of them.

first, i'd second the ambassador pifer. we need to provide not just the m. re: although they are needed but also the advisory teams to help the ukrainian the ukrainiah this insurgency in the east. we have much experience a loss and in the stability operations. they need to know how to use military force reaching out to the population. secondly, we need to come as the president said, very rapidly deploy the significant, heavy that is armor heavy, pre- positioned stocks and rotational forces along the borders of nato east. again the president is moving forward on this and it shouldn't wait for additional money. we have the equipment. we can deploy the troops. we should also ensure that this becomes a nato mission and that nato also provides troops. we've mentioned economic support for ukraine that's very important and they're the

president is going to have to do a lot of work himself because a lot of money has gone in without much result. finally as mentioned in the draft bill, we need to do more to win europe from russian gas and from russian financial investments and other pressures that are stable to use thanks to its economy. there are ways to do this that would have immediate and long time effects. the long-term issue i want to dwell on for a little bit because that is the third order of magnitude that we have here. again, what we have seen in the last months is an extraordinary development in the history of europe and certainly in the history of the post-cold war. i reject the notion that russia was put into this by the expansion of the east. stuck 20 years ago and while perhaps that could have been

done differently it also stood down the vast majority of its conventional forces. russia did not do the same. the u.s. could be you, the international community tried for ten years with tens of billions of dollars to integrate russia into the international community in every way possible. the result is the russia that is trying to expand again using 18th century models. at this point, we have to consider the stark likelihood of not just russia but possibly china as well of a more closely tied to russia motivated to challenge both the international order and the guarantor of the system. we need to start thinking as a country com, as an alliance anda global community about the implications of this. if we wish to avoid a geostrategic shift as dramatic as 1989 only in the other direction, the maintaining of the integrity of this international order must be

among our vital interests. thank you very much, senators. >> thank you mr. chairman and members of the committee i appreciate the opportunity to testify and i will summarize my written testimony and try not to repeat what others have said. the mission is to encourage democracy in places where it is absent from the health of democracy become more effective where it's a danger and hear the best practices where the democracy is flourishing. given that mission, it is only natural that ukraine has been an essential part of our programming for more than 20 years. in addition to the primary office, we have operated the offices in odessa and until recently crimea. i arise the monitored election and independent history including the most recent on m may 25. our high-level mission was led by the senator and congressman and cochair of the house

democracy partnership. we visited more than 100 places like kiev and odessa and the elections we trained more than 5,000 observers from the political parties and my. the observation team were free and fair and met international standards. it's a wide range of challenges they face while administering these actions. in many ways these remain and need urgent attention and perhaps the help of the left. they noted one o one obvious che they face in the recent months to sponsor the violence in the soutsouth and east into the separatists and there are widespread cases taking over the radio stations establishing the checkpoints and shutting down the airport and they shot down

the election and the parts of the country and in a few places they succeeded. it was and is important and vital because it received enough attention is the plight and the tragedy of the tatars. the history of the suffering of the tatars people are well-known. the deportation resulted in the death of thousands of tatars and at the end of the soviet union they make up nearly 15% of the population. obviously it might not have the approval of moscow. since the beginning of the work in ukraine we have sought to assist the democratic aspirations of the tatars people and work with them closely to

build communication exchanges and to try to link them up with young people from western euro europe. unfortunately we are unable to continue that programming and occupy crimea and we would very much like to return to find ways to help this population. in any case in light of the annexation of the soviet history we should be watchful of how they try to live and work and hopefully prosper in the face of the russian rule. in some ways that challenge that ukraine is facing i would argue is the overwhelming force. the lack of the media and the social media and social areas. it's hard for any nation to build a sense of the national purpose and unity there is a lack of indigenous media. it's nearly impossible when its

hostile foreign-born propaganda bent on destabilizing the communities and the government bodies. we should work to help foster independent ukraine centered media. more and more people especially young people now get their news and information through social media platforms. there is a lack of social media platforms that ukraine centered in parts of that country, and i do believe that we can help boost the social media but from that will help create a sense of unity and identity. one of the most subtle and yet serious challenges that ukraine has faced is the weekend it infrastructure. recent reports suggest just the government's it had been compromised by the foreign sponsored viruses. on the day of the election and the delegation learned that they had launched a cyber attack aimed at bringing down the central election passion's main

database. they had given the opponents further pretense for the aggression and destabilizing activities. the effective it is absolutely necessary for the effective democracy and governance. members of the committee is too easy to focus on the challenges in ukraine. we should also focus on the hopeful signs. as my colleague has noted the president elect has already taketaken the second steps to me the country forward. he's indicated that he will retain the prime minister and other members of the current government had stated his top rarities are to maintain the unity of the country by reaching out to the eastern regions, tackling the production and creating jobs. mr. chairman, the recent events in ukraine make it clear both the challenges and the possibilities that lie ahead.

the fact that ukrainians in the span of a few months were able to remove from the office the corrupt and powerful leader and then turnaround and conduct national elections that met international standards is remarkable. the fact that all of this was a published in the face of the threats and violence is his record. to be clear as my colleague has said that ukrainians responsible for shaping the country's future to have a unique history and a culture that is all of their own and they want to chart a path that meets their own needs and aspirations, not anyone else's. they probably said to us recently we went to find europe and instead we found ukraine. this is a great moment for ukraine and potentially a great moment for democracy. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. wollack. >> mr. chairman, senator corker,

members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to testify on the development in ukraine. with support from usaid as well as the national endowment for democracy and the department of state and the government of sweden and canada we've conducted a democracy assistance program in ukraine for the past two decades. most recently, we fielded an international observer delegation for the election which was led by the chairman madeleine albright and the former spanish foreign minister, and we were also fortunate to have jane harmon as a part of the leadership of the delegation. ukraine has turned the corner on to a democratic path. at the same time the country is facing an extraordinary set of challenges, some new and some long-standing. most pressing is the threat from russia that has illegally occupied crimea. they suffered operations in the eastern and amounts to an

undeclared war against ukrainian sovereignty. on the domestic front of challenges are no less daunting. the economy is in a crisis by all measures has been rampant and the public confidence in the political institution is low. where there has been overwhelming support in both east and the west of the country for the ukrainian unity, there are divisions over the distribution of the governmental power. external forces are working to exploit and politicize the decision to the campaign of just information. it demonstrates that were sparked by anger over the government of corrupt refusal to sign a european union treaty. but they were sustained for three months by the more basic demand for dignity. they introduced accountability to citizens as a requirement of government. however the redistribution of power from either needs to citizens woulcitizens with the e only if the civic and political

leaders signed ways to keep people engaged in politics. the country now has the opportunity to translate the energy of this watershed moment into a sustainable democratic trajectory area and one that makes the future hopefully unnecessary. the first test of ukraine's ability to navigate the transition was the may 25 presidential election and by every measure, ukraine passed that test. this was perhaps the most important in the independent history. where they were allowed to cast ballots in the vast majority of the country coming ukrainian voices came through loud and clear. they voted for sovereignty and democracy and they did so bought with the tory fanfare, but with sober determination. in observing elections in one in 60 countries including the polls in ukraine, rarely ha rarely hay heard such positive commentary about the process from the political contestants and the nonpartisan monitors alike.

after the president elect's inauguration this weekend, the government will need to pursue open government practices that incorporate the interest of the ukrainians from all regions of the country. he and other news leaders need to focus as much on the process as on policy outcomes. the delivering on the citizens expect patients would be an any possible without encouraging meaningful participation. beyond the need for the economic reforms and the diversification of the trade and energy supplies to these expectations include the constitutional changes including the decentralization, serious anticorruption measures is the number one priority for the ukrainians throughout the country and the judicial reform. since february the government and the parliament has enacted an impressive set of reforms and the civil society organizations

are helping to shape an ambitious agenda. i draw attention to the package of reforms and the civil society initiatives to improve the law, procurement practices, education policies and access to public information among other issues. by listening to and consulting with citizens and communicating in clear terms how short-term sacrifices will lead to long-term improvements, government leaders can help smooth the path to the results. for the political parties to challenge will be to build support from the grassroots up and base base the policies and strategies on citizens concerns this will require them to embrace new ways of organizing. the movement showed citizens can wield considerable political power. but by their very nature, the street protests. sustained popular participation requires leadership and structure channeling the energy

into the day today and admittedly less exciting business reform and governance is the next hurdle. these need to be disseminated more widely throughout the country. it will be important as a national dialogue on the representation for all ukrainians to accelerate and deepen. the process which is now underway is broad and active participation from civil society. the impact of the past assistance is more visible now than ever before. years of corrupt and inept government ask much of the promise. but that's sustained support from the u.s. nonetheless hoped the democratic groups get established, expand and accumulate skills and survived through the political hardships. also in the new political environment, the partners of the assistance project can be found among the most active reformers and the government, parliament, political parties and civil

societies. ukraine now needs help in all of its priority reform areas. ukrainian political and civic leaders have been unanimous in requesting such support. there are major financial needs to be sure. in addition, ukrainians are equal to become eager for technical assistance and linkages to the international counterparts. just as ukraine's problems will not be solved overnight, international engagement needs to expand and aim for the long-term. thank you very much. >> thank you all for your testimony. and before i start a round of questioning, let me recognize that the ukrainian ambassador -- and we welcome you, mr. ambassador, to the hearing. the g7 statement as we stand ready to intensify and to

consider significant additional restrictive measures to incur further costs on russia should so require. but as i listen to what i think was a majority of yo uas it woud seem to me that the collective view coming and correct me if i'm wrong i'm abou at that times already here. am i wrong in what i have heard, or is that basically what you're saying? if you open up your microphone and say yes or no i would be happy to hear. >> yes, the time is here, senator. >> yes, the russians are thoroughly involved in what's going on in ukraine and have the power to stop that if they wished. senate xml or a veto if the mac -- asymmetric strength was in bad shape and it's gotten worse and by doing this quickly, although it will be a short-term pain for europe in particular it would be long term and medium

and long-term gain for europe and for us so we have an energy sector obviously that could export a substantial amount of energy to europe. a cynic mr. chairman, the position of opposition leader is if russia interfered in the conduct of the elections the more sanctions would be coming. i think that it's clear they did in fact take a number of steps to interfere with those, so i would argue that the time has come most definitely. you mentioned a cyber attack. how do we know that to be the case that was emanating from russia lacks >> that was brought to us by our u.s. ambassador and has been reported although not as widely reported quite frankly as i think it deserves. but while they were able to fight it of off its late outputa number of people have been suggesting and that is that so much of the infrastructure

system, which was operated by the russian supported government officials has been infiltrated, and it is weekend. and that seems basic. >> and obviously, had it been successful than they could have undermined the veracity of the election and therefore pursued the goal. so the point is well taken. let me ask you this. what do you think from your experience? is the calculus in terms of what will affect -- i know what the calculus is, at least i think. what is going to affect the calculus in a way that changes the course of the events? >> i would argue that the possibility of the more intense western sanctions wouldn't necessarily affect the calculus. if you look at what is happening to the russian economy, it was already in the difficulty of 2013, but the sanctions and the threat of the more robust

sanctions have increased the problems for the russian economy. the question here and many russian economists go back and say vladimir putin has an implicit social contract with the russian people in which he says you're not going to have much in the way of political freedom. but in return, you're going to get economic security, growing economy and high living standard. and mr. putin delivered on that in 2,000 in 2008. last year, some were saying that even the projected growth of 2014 of 200% within the enough for mr. putin to hold up his end of the bargain, so we need to try to increase the pressure. i should say that one of my colleagues, his concern is what will happen as it may play a different role that mr. putin may seize on those sanctions and use that to blame the west for the economic difficulties and then use that to sidestep his own mismanagement but i would argue that even if this is just the prospect of changing the calculus in a way that makes them change the policy, the west

should do it because of the egregious actions of the last couple of months. >> let me add that in american politics but it's the economy and the polling in russia right now shows nationalism running high. but over time, as the sanctions bite further community do think that there should be some sectors done very carefully. i agree with the ambassador pifer that they need to be done carefully. people in russia would have a wiser understanding of living. let's understand that he hasn't already learned the colin powell break of the rule if you break it you own it and he now owns crimea or is renting the crimea coming and he's stuck with a horrible economy and the need with which he has had to fulfill to increase the tensions and the payments were the estate workers in crimea and that is another hit on the russian budget. i think senator mccain is right when he says russian economy is a gas station and russia is a gas station posing as a country

and if that gas is turned off at least with respect to europe that is a huge hit. he made a deal with china but the shows desperation that doesn't show long-term advantage. >> i would like to ad add that m very much in favor of the sanctions, and i think that we have seen some secondary effects. we should continue to strengthen them and keep the europeans on board because they would take most of the kind of the pain. nonetheless, i know little bit concerned if we think that to sum it up briefly the 21st century values, economic development and such triumph over aggression over nationalism and the 18th and 19th century values i'm not sure where i've been deployed that that's true and i really don't think that is true with mr. putin because he is very clear on his goals with the russian people. his desire -- and it seems to have a lot of support -- is to

re-create something like the russian imperial power as one of the great powers over much of the area around russia today, stretching into eurasia and central europe. this is a very dangerous strategy. you asked how can we respond against it. he is facing the eu and the united states with a 2 trillion-dollar economy. we have $30 trillion. we have six times the population, two or three times the number of forces under arms that are equipped. why is he doing this, and why is he seemingly having some success? because we are divided. we aren't sure what the threat is coming and in particular, our elite coat we are reluctant to some degree to meet the force with force. that's why it's so important to take the military moves while also strengthening the economic and political sanctions and

structures against him, and because he doesn't believe we are going to stand up for our values, whereas -- >> been supportive of the president's billion-dollar initiative on the nato. it's been absolutely. it shouldn't be contingent on action. he has the authority and equipment and troops to start doing this tomorrow. >> i would like to make a point about the role in the election. we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that 70% of the electric was disenfranchised. either because of the occupation of crimea or the russian backed separatists. the question remains whether the fighting still going on in where the russian goal is to make ukrainian nongovernmental periodicity action to try to destabilize the country before during and after the election continues.

>> i have a lot of questions but one final question, senator corker. what can he do in eastern ukraine -- some of you talked about the decentralization of the government. and i would like to hear exactly what you think that means because of course the russians want a federated system so they could take ukraine. i'm assuming you don't mean that. protection for the use of the russian language inclusion of the more easterners and the government. do some of you have thoughts as to what he can do to try to console the date the eastern part of ukraine as a part of the national body politic? >> we don't want to dominate at this end of the table but i listed five things, and i think the border with russia is absolutely crucial. on the public record there were truckloads of people who may or may not be russian.

we think that the russian nationals. they don't have the capacity to do that. obviously the russians do. and i think having the international call on them specifically to do that right now would at least expose the role that they are playing at a think that we are all united in understanding what that role is. it's tragic that some ukrainians who wanted to vote were prevented from doing that. we all view it as an on occupied part of ukraine and most of them couldn't vote either. >> he said he wants to make his first trip as president and he may find a receptive audience.

it's important to bear in mind the majority population is ethnic ukrainian. the polls show some interesting things. they show that while many people were uncomfortable with what happened in terms of the change of power at the end of february and they regarded the acting government as illegitimate 70% wanted it to stay in ukraine. large majorities were by the separatists they didn't want to see the russian arm armies that there is an audience he can appeal to. decentralization of the power to some extent makes sense because the government right now is overly centralized so baking the regional governors elected as opposed to a point that the president would be a positive step and pushing the authority to the region would be a positive step in terms of more efficient effect and accountable government. also, he said that there would

be some status for the russian language. this seems to be a very touchy issue in eastern ukraine and there are things i think that he can do that would impact begins to make a majority of the population feel more comfortable that they are looking out for the political economic interests and cut the support for those that are being backed by russia. >> mr. chairman, first off with respect to the polling we've done a great deal of polling and the ambassador pifer is exactly right. every part of the country, even in those areas in the far east which may have wanted more autonomy but wanted to be part of ukraine view themselves as ukrainian and didn't see discrimination and very much wanted to remain part of ukrai ukraine. i would argue that the president-elect needs to do is to take a look at what putin did in the lead up to these elections. he sought to destabilize and

shut down radio stations and so on and so forth. so i think what he needs to do among other things is to build a media that can communicate not in moscow but gave an accurate picture and provide channels for the ukrainians from all parts of the country to get together in the social media platforms, to communicate with each other and exchange ideas, and finally, i would argue that a significant exchange program which creates east, west, north, south understanding in the country to build a new generation of leaders to think of themselves entirely as ukrainians and not coming you know, regional i think it's vitall it is vitally. and again, based upon what we have seen from the president, that is very much what he fears. >> thank you mr. chairman it's good to know what w if we have e

on both sides of the aisle uniform in their thinking and it's good to know we have a lot of that on our committee, so it seems to me it's very evident we have a country that has underperformed and has missed 20 years of development and huge challenges within the country and then you have this other issue that is a major geopolitical significance to the world. they come together at ukraine on the border and affect much of the policy that europe would be whole democratic and free it also creates internal issues to russia as russian people see the country evolving in a very different direction from where they are and certainly a threat to their leadership there.

so let me just start -- is there anybody on the panel that doesn't believe that the newly elected leadership, which is impressive and he is an oligarch. i believe with the congressman and at the same time he was not a state owned enterprise. he did for this naked eye he won't say the honest way, but a differenthat adifferent way thae oligarchs. is there any difference of opinion that he is absolutely committed to making the transition that's necessary to be made within a country? does anybody feel like that is not the case? >> i hope he is committed. we have to see what he does. we thought that he turned out to be enormously disappointing. some people thought that.

so it really matters what he does. i just have the one suggestion for the way that you framed this. i think that ukraine is ukraine, it's a part of europe, it isn't part of russia, it is a country that is situated next to nato. many people in ukraine are very interested in and have a long history of connecting to europe. but some people in ukraine are also very interested in and have a long history of connecting to russia. and i think the best outcome from ukraine is to have a somewhat decentralized government wears ukraine can be both. and certainly last year that is in our interest and i also think it's in ukraine's interest but if russia would back off i don't think that it would be bad if they choose to have robust ties

with russia. >> and it's apparent what the newly elected president plans to do. did you want to say something? >> no, i was just going to say i was one of those that had the chance to meet with him the day before the election and while i absolutely agree that the proof is in the pudding, he was impressive in laying out the agenda for what needed to be done including the constitutional reform and taking on the corruption. so he certainly knows what to do. and obviously, iadb that we should be there in the request to get there. >> i think in our meetings with the president elect and the prime minister i think everybody understands the challenges that lie ahead. and i think they are all deeply committed to these issues and they realize that now there is a second chance for meaningful reform in the country. at the same time, i think we have to put our faith in institutions and processes as well and not just individuals. and the parliament is going to

play an important role, civil society is going to play an important role and the question is whether all of the various sectors of society can work constructively together in order to achieve the goals that wheelchaiwe allshare. >> it's very impressive and hopefully the team will be put together to move things ahead. since i'm running out of time, i will stop here, but i was going to pursue our there anything that -- is there anything that the western countries are involved and care about ukraine, is there anything other than i know that you mentioned some military equipment and training that needs to take place is there anything that you see the west not doing that they should be doing now? i know that it has to be ukraine itself that makes this happened, i couldn't agree more. more. more. bumore. obviously assistance is going to be needed, and the persistence

is going to be needed. is there anything that you see right now if one person could respond very briefly as i want to move on to something else is there anything that you see that's missing right now in the complement of the effort that is it would be helpful to help them move along. >> i would just mention two quick things. number one the commencement of the financial assistance should not be caught up in the bureaucratic hurdles. they have to flow in a timely way. and second, as my chairman talks about, when madeleine albright talks about the marshall plan was not only about funding it was also about the massive technical assistance, and when we met with the government of their committee welcomed large-scale infusion of human resources in the country on all the major reform issues they looked to the united states for expertise committee looked to the diaspora community, the

europeans particularly poland. poland is engaged on the constitutional reform issues as well. i think on the civil service reform, i am all of these issues having technical assistance on large-scale embedded in the ministries and governments in offices, civil society this is all welcomed into the belief that this is critical. >> investor jeffrey i will move onto the other topic and that's russia. i had an executive in the office this morning. i won't name the name of the company. i don't think that he would like that to occur. but we have this issue that you just mentioned this is a major geopolitical issue biggest thing to hav happen since 9/11, and yt the tools that we are willing to use obviously are very different than those that we used on 9/11. i agree having come from poland

and romania this is a major geopolitical event. how we respond to this is going to reverberate for generations. you mentioned the sanctions and many of us here have pushed for more robust sanctions. some people would say, this executive would say we push on the one hand for globalization around the world to try to create democracy because we think that our way of doing business causes the world to be a better place and i agree with that and at the same time these companies all have become intertwined. we have crossed the red line and sanctions ought to be in place for what happened in eastern ukraine. how do you respond to the folks who come in and have to say do not have an impact on me that

way. how do you respond to people who say what you just said? and how do you respond to the president when he talks about we do not want ourselves to be split from europe? we do not want -- we want to go with them. is that an appropriate place to be, or should we be more forward than where we are today? >> in my view, you have to stay in a closely synced with europe. a closein many respects ally with respect to angela merkel with respect to the rest of europe and where it is. there has been some success. >> do you really see that? >> i would say compared to her population, she is tougher than most germans. this is what we have to deal with. in terms of economic issues, it

is not a question of cutting russia out of the global economy. aree cannot do that, they not iran, and that is not our argument with them. the problem is they are able to use blackmailing political some of based upon their economic activities, most notably selling gas to europe, and secondarily, the way russian i spent an hour with vladimir putin in 2007 where he harped on this theme with a very unpleasant conversation with president bush. they see this as political weapons, so you need to marketfy in the best economy tradition. there are seemingly minor things that are so important. the european union is looking to take on the monopolistic aspects of the vertically integrated russian gas industry from

production to transportation to actual marketing in many countries and to break that up. those are the kinds of things that will not only send a signal but will eventually rob russia -- so much strange capability to blackmail an entity, europe, that is made times larger in economy and power in every sense. >> now my time is up and hopefully you can response to someone else. i think the biggest fear that i by someone inssed poland last week, and that is that we end up accepting a bigger piece with russia -- a it peace with russia. we are not willing to use the same tools. so we end up in a situation where they exude extremely bad

behavior, we don't do much, and peace up in this bitter where they have this nation that has broken international norms and laws, reneged on agreements. and we continue to go along in createster peace that instability in eastern europe and causes people to question the united states. mr. chairman, thank you. chairman, thank you very much. let me thank all of our witnesses for their extraordinary work. i want to thank the iri for their participation in monitoring the ukrainian elections. senator portman and i were there on the ground, had a chance to visit polling stations and had a chance to meet with the leadership of the country. we share your observations, and i thank you very much.

similarmuch have observations. in your overall concern, the international order of dealing with these types of incursions is very much in jeopardy here, and this goes well beyond the ukraine. clearly what russia did in crimea, what they are doing in east ukraine, violates international commitments and agreements, etc. we go through all of them, including osce commitments. it is all being looked at in the china seas. i went from ukraine to vietnam. all i heard in vietnam was their concern about china in the south china seas. when i was in japan, i heard concerns about the east china seas. order,ot engage a better we will see what happened in ukraine used by major powers elsewhere to solve territorial

disagreements. i just want to come on strongly in support of your comments that we need to get nato involved in ukraine because it does involve our natoity of alliance. and we need to have an enforceable code of conduct in the china seas so that we can restore some semblance of withpline in how we deal territorial disputes. i just also want to underscore points that have been made of what we need to do in ukraine. , i agreeoman harman that the protesters in the maidan were much more fundamental than just taking sides on ethnic disputes. they want a country that responds to the needs of their people, and a country free of corruption. that is not going to be easy in ukraine. it will take a long-term commitment to get the country to

perform at the level that the protesters expect and will demand. so therefore, first and foremost, is our economic programs to help so that they have a performing economy. i think we all agree on that. the point that was raised about ourging europe, along with policies, that has to be essential. i think president obama deserves great credit for being able to mobilize europe in a more cohesive fashion that we have seen with previous problems in other places in europe. does require attention to the fundamental economics which deal also with energy, and we very much need to be aggressive in providing short-term and long-term alternatives to ukraine on their energy issues. it also involves sanctions. there is total agreement here that we need to be tougher on sanctions. and that sanctions work, and that the threat of sanctions

work. but the threat only works to a certain degree if you do not deliver. russia's actions and the words that were given before the election indicate it is time for us to move forward with additional sanctions. iny have to be strategic thought out and in coordination with europe. i want to get to another point that has been talked about, and effect whether we can the balance on the border between ukraine and russia. pointed out, you congressman harman, the people from russia who want to come into ukraine have no difficulty getting through that border. nice ifwould be president putin would do something about it. we have to be very firm about that. but resident putin does not do what he says. so i don't want to take his word that he will maintain the border for ukrainians

against russia. i think the united states and europe can play a pretty constructive role in strengthening the border security issues. the russians may make it difficult for osce to get that type of technical support, but it seems to me that we can find an effective way to help ukraine deal with its own defense of its borders. get your view as to whether that would be a priority, should be a priority, and whether that can be effectively carried out. >> well, you know i agree with you. how to do it does matter. what the process is does matter. it needs to be a ukrainian response. international organizations to help is right. the osce has an interesting position in the country.

osce convene roundtables, three held by a scholar at the wilson center, and those roundtables begin to achieve something that mark green is talking about, which is a conversation in the country to unite all the parts of the country -- a really good idea, and they will continue. but osce is interesting because it is a member organization that includes russia. followinge in vienna my trip to ukraine and was told that the way the procedures work at osce -- russia is kind of locked in for a six-month it seems to me it would be smart do whatosce mobilized to top you are talking about -- >> the mission is in their. toit is in east ukraine, and

mobilize resources after the border. putin responds to strength. reasonable controls, full of armed people who may or may not be -- >> they are going to need technical assistance, more than the international community is currently providing. >> ukraine has a very undercapitalized system. our strength against russia is our economic strength. that is where we can stop russia more effectively, and -- are our best weapon. we talk about terrorists attacking us asymmetrically. everybody here supports sanctions done intelligently and quickly could get a very rapid response. russia to not trust

stop the flow into ukraine. >> i agree we can do more to assist ukraine in terms of tightening their border. in the short term it will be the gold given the length of the border come and my guess is as long as the russians are determined to get across they will find ways. in the short term, to pressure additional sanctions on russia, we have got to get russia to be part of the solution, not the problem. oflet's remember the history brushfire battles. we also need to help the ukrainian government in that part of the country to deliver. we needed to help build capacity, help deliver basic services and really provide the links to the government that those communities are looking for that have been taken apart by the destabilization

activities when putin comes in, attempts to sponsor the separatist movements. success in building governing capacity should be part of the solution. tois also important i think create that sense of linkage to the national government and the kinds of successes that reinforce for all those communities why they want to be ukrainian in the first place. >> senator, i agree with everybody my colleagues have said, but you have laid out a military problem and it is not a military problem we are ignorant of. we see it in afghanistan where you have an insurgency supported and largely generated from across the border. it is a tricky problem. there are ways to deal with it. first of all, all of the things stated to strengthen the

ukrainian government am a to strengthen the support of the people, to strengthen the economy, that then leverages into a common insurgency's tragic of stabilization that puts a minimum of force and a maximum henri conciliation and slowly moving in picking the low-hanging fruit as you do in any organized stability operation so that the area controlled by the pro-russians does not expand. at the same time you are putting pressure through sanctions, diplomatic activities, to strengthening nato, which is something to do and does not like, watching american ground troops on his western borders, to send a signal that it is just going to get worse if you keep this up, and what are you gaining? deepening ukraine is its sovereignty, its stability, and in the long run you're not going to win this insurgency.

and then there can be a time to move this forward. you need the political, economic steps, you need to reach out to the population, but it is also a military activity. >> could i comment on what you said regarding the impact of ukraine on other places. be signing the association agreement later this month. it will be holding parliamentary elections in november. and i think we have to have a very watchful on on what is .appening what will happen following the signing of the association agreement in a very small and vulnerable country close by. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you used a business term which i frick.ow-hanging my colleagues on republican side realize we try to address it in a strategic process. i would like to quickly growth

through something like that. strategic planning process describes reality. you have to bow to reality. aced on the reality, set goals. i want to lay out my assumptions on reality. first assumption, it makes no sense to russia what putin is doing. number two, as result, this is all about putin's dego. number three, what gives him power is his oil and gas, the gas station. in his monopoly control over supply which is crazy. in business, customers should be in control, not supplier. here is another reality. talk about sanctions, a contrary view. most of the harm caused to the russian economy occurred before any sanctions were imposed,

because the world recognizes what he is doing and makes no economic sense. he has done his own economic harm. sanctionsy is because are a double edged sword, mutually harmful, i do not believe the west will have the will to affect his catalyst altogether. i do not believe they are going to be imposed. maybe not a bad thing. i would rather inflict pain on putin, make him pay a price without us having to pay a price. that sets me up with the assumption -- that is the reality situation. run that you establish goals. the number one short term goal, obvious, is ukraine must gain control over the east. anybody disagree with that? ok. we need to help them, right? so we can talk about sanctions

but they will not get imposed, but we can help them secure the east. so we need to do those things. when wewo, we certainly are on the ground heard about the incredible effect of the propaganda coming from russia. we need to counter that aggressively. we can do that, can't we? short-terme the two goals. medium term, having what was so hopeful about the protest in maidan, a coming together of the ukrainian people saying they are sick of the corruption. we need to do everything in terms of our actions. we have to tie aid or help to make sure that anticorruption laws are passed. we should do that. that is the medium term because another part of the solution is we have to have a successful government in ukraine. long term, again, understanding

what gives putin power is his oil and gas monopolies. we should be taking actions today to make sure that vladimir putin understands his monopoly ,ill not be in place, not two 3, 4 years from now. here is the assumption, the reality, and you have to hear the goals we can achieve. where am i wrong? what am i missing? i will start with you, congresswoman harman. >> i agree, and none of us mentioned russian television, but madeleine albright who headed the delegation on which i was a member, speaks russian, and she kept talking about the domination of this message from russian tv into ukraine everywhere she went. do notot and ukrainians have an effect of counter. i commend you for putting that on the table.

it is a very important short-term goal. we discussed the border. everybody agrees what needs to be done on the order. medium term, my understanding is there are now as part of this package of laws that can mentioned, the reanimation package, what has been passed to date, some strong anticorruption law. the problem is it is not enforced. that should be a huge early step of the poroshenko government. on the long-term, absolutely break up the gas monopoly. i am hoping for sectional sanctions. tom friedman, the writer for "the new york times," called it a grand bargain to buy into a package of safe to the limit of energy, safe transportation of energy, and then export of energy, a variety of energy, not russia asto replace

the gas station for europe. another point, senator mark d was going to be here, but i know he has a notion that we should help ukraine become perfect. i think we rehearsed this -- >> if you are going to talk renewable energies, that would rank pretty low on the -- we have to take a look on what is most effective. markey,ing for senator which i have done for many years, his point is that crane is the least efficient user of energy of any of the countries in that region. windows are open in the wintertime because it gets so hot. >> if we could help with efficiency, we could reduce their dependence on russia. there are steps like that we should be taking. >> i agree with most of your comments. i think there is value in sanctions because -- >> do you honestly think they are going to be imposed where -- we could impose them.

it might affect his catalyst at a cost to the west. because that cost of the west, do you think they can be imposed? vladimir putin has crossed the line. .e has done what we said we have not impose them yet. thatcan see sanctions would have a serious impact on russia. i cannot tell you politically that i am sure we can bring the europeans to do that. >> that is a real problem. what is achievable, what is possible. towe should still be trying push, because otherwise the egregious nature of what has happened, the first time since 1945 where a big country has used military force to take territory from a small country in europe. there needs to be some penalty for this. on the gas question, i think we should be doing things, including looking at exporting itrican lng, to begin make

more difficult for gas -- you're now gets about 30% of its gas from russia. europe only slowly should wean itself away, and we should find ways to encourage that. jane said about working with ukraine. ukraine has huge possibilities if they get more efficient use use for gasrgy to production. in five years to seven years, to produce huge oddities of unconventional gas within ukraine. if ukrainians make that happen, they could be in a situation by 2020, they could be importing gas not from russia, but from the west, and be in a position where they would not need gas from russia. that would be an important change in the dynamic, because ukraine's biggest economic bane right now is it depends on 6% of

its gas from russia. >> i would like to continue on this line on energy because we have any a number of discussions in this committee, and while there are disagreements on the committee about things like lng exports, there are strong agreements whether it is helping reverse flows of energy that to ukraine from some of its western or northern neighbors, working with ukraine to develop its own energy capacity. out year he is interested in more exports of energy -- algeria is more interested in exports of energy. i sense of the russian economy is it is a rust belt economy resources, and the toughest thing we could do for whatis to do just exactly senator johnson said, and breakup that monopoly. so we ought to be looking at all those opportunities, even including potential resources like algeria that would like to ship more energy to europe, so it is not just we can do,

although we can do a lot, but other partners who would want to help them wean away from the monopoly is critical. i want to ask just about one topic, and that is the polling sk andthe east, donest eastern area, and you talk about that earlier, ambassador green. the polling is pretty strong that huge numbers in the east did not want to be part of russia, do not want to be severed from ukraine. the polling is also strong that they have a great this trust of the government in kiev, and some of that has been because of the propaganda campaign from russia, but some of it was because steps like this effort to potentially strip away russian as an official language. the population of this part of ukraine speaks russian. the president needs to address this immediately. you talked about the effort by the president to go to do

netsk first. what can the president due to start winning over ukrainians that kiev will not be stiff arming us but will be including us and respecting our traditions, encoding russian language. >> you hate laid out -- you have laid out some of it yourself. some of the symbols are in port and, going to the east, but also capacity building so the government is seen as being able to deliver on some of the basic area.and wants in that i also would not separate out what we have been talking about in terms of corruption. one of the reasons why some of the far reach of the country is so angry with kiev is the economy was plundered by the previous president and all rife with corruption, and was about.t maidan

there were events that sparked it in terms of backing out of the movement towards the eu, but there was also this basic and ger toward a government riddled with corruption, unable to provide basic services. couple that with linking that part of the country to kiev in terms of a national dialogue through the media, exchanges that create a youth network of reform-minded ukrainians. those may seem like long-term activities. i would argue they are not. i would argue there are immediate steps that need to be taken. i think each one of those steps would send very important signals to that part of the problem in addition to all the other things we have been talking about. of what members of the committee have been putting forward, my view is all of the above. if we are looking for simple solutions, i am not sure they are there. we need to take a very comprehensive approach that has both the security aspects to it,

to the capacity holding, to the basic infrastructure that is necessary for delivering services for creating a sense of purpose and unity and having that dialogue. let me give you six pieces of what i think a package that could be used. first of all, the government would offer to de-escalate its use of force if the armed separatists lay down their weapons. decentralization, pushing authority out to the regions and at the local level. >> elections of governors. >> the big news about the may 25 collection is it looked at part of that legitimacy over the acting government because you now have's the money who has a strong mandate. we give the parliament also a renewed democratic legitimacy and that would be important. agreement -- and poroshenko has talked about this -- some

validation of official status for russian status. fifth element would be a strong and visible anticorruption campaign. tens of thousands of people were on the streets come about they were tired of corruption everywhere. i think another part would be his foreign-policy approach. you have had people, mr. pershing go, say they do not want to get too close to nato. six years ago i testified ukraine was ready for a membership action plan, which they were. nato is just a very controversial topic within ukraine. fore there will be some way ukraine not to say never, but to say not now in a way that i think would be useful in avoiding what could be otherwise a very controversial topic. >> how confrontational or provocative is a continued move toward eu association in eastern ukraine? there has been a political agreement, but economic pacts are supposed to be signed in june. is that provocative in eastern

ukraine? >> it looks provocative, and particularlylly -- among the younger ukrainians. you should go forward with the association with the european union. the problem they have is what i believe triggered the russian activity from crimea seizure on to what you see in eastern ukraine is that the russians do not want to see ukraine do that association agreement because ukraine moving in that direction is irretrievable -- >> [indiscernible] wanty have 30 seconds, i to ask one last question. one concern i had early was the ultrance of the nationalist parties. i viewed it as a real positive that they are candidates of the two name parties that got 2.2% of the road.

am i right to read that as a positive trend? >> i think is it a positive trend. they got clobbered. i think we have to allow free expression in the country. i abhor those views, but if we try to censor and bury those views we are doing egyp-- for those insty eastern ukraine as part of the bigger deal, and i would caution against early elections because there has to be enough political capacity for all of the new voices to be able to run campaigns. we saw that in egypt again, the elections were too early, and it cannot win. >> i would add one thing. i think the russian actions in crimea have had the unintended opposite effect that a majority of provinces in eastern and southern part of the country. eagerness much more on the part, and election showed that, for ukrainian unity as a

result of his actions. i think it has had a huge impact. i would add on the national dialogue, which is another -- to expand and deepen the national dialogue would be something the president could do as well. >> thank you. it is good to see some of you. i have not seen some of you in a while. i apologize for missing the oral testimony. a couple of issues, and i apologize if you have covered them. how do you believe, ms. harman, the russian and china deal on natural gas affects the ability for us to export lng in an effective way? is, of the attraction here although it would take a while to get the infrastructure in place for it to make a real difference, price signals would have been sent immediately. to what extent is that nullified i this big russia-china deal? >> i said earlier i see it as a

sign of desperation. russia was beginning to believe and i still believe it should be a reality that we, the u.s. and europe, are going to cut off their ability to sell gas to europe, so they desperately wanted another market. i do not know what the terms are effective. many people speculate they are not favorable to russia. until we know that i am not sure we can fully answer the question. but i think there is an enormous opportunity for the u.s. energy industry to get its act together to work with the europeans and to find new markets in the medium term, including the export of lng. i understand there are regional price lng.at ric we need to be more strategic and if there are international

opportunities for us to sell energy, not just lng to europe, we should explore those. >> thank you. with regard to sanctions, as we mentioned, russia has already tripped some of the measures. they passed the threshold where we said we would move forward with additional sanctions. europeans are not following. what in your view would it take for the europeans to come on board, mr. jeffrey? to russian all, over oteri action by conventional -- russian military action by conventional forces would be the red line for the europeans to take steps forward. i do not think putin will do this. he is now using irregular forces rather than his own elite types as he used in crimea. this gets back to senator cardin's question, even this sanctions we are

seeing, and long-term gas and oil and other energy decisions we are discussing here have as you mentioned, senator flake, tremendous future implications money andvement of economic decisions around the integrated world, and it is hurting russia in many ways when we are taking these steps, even if they are not bold or major, not like what we did against iran or we do not use the tools we use after 9/11. we will not going to russia that way. have very minor steps significant consequences, and the other thing is they are hard for us and particularly for europeans to do. putin does not think we will do hard things. every time we do it harder halfway hard thing we are sending a signal to him that who knows what we are going to do tomorrow if he keeps this up, and that is a good thing. when ourador green,

delegation was there just before the seizure of crimea, the acting prime minister said with regard to the ukrainian with military we have nothing that shoots flies. develop some of that capacity. what are the political invocations of using military force in the east? is ites that play, how played, and how will it play in the future in terms of the dynamics with the russian speakers and leanings of some people? what are the military implications of action? >> first off as we have been talking about throughout this hearing it is essential that the ukrainian government show it is able to govern and actually to deliver, and a huge part of

government's purpose is to deliver security along its borders. that is terrifically important. what you point to is that the infrastructure, security t.,rastructure, military, i. has been weakened, it is weakened, and it is currently no match for russians, whether -- >> military, police force, across-the-board? >> one of the things we heard from ukrainians is, look, we're worried the russians know exactly what we're going to do before we do it because they are the ones that helped set up the i.t. infrastructure in the first place. what the west can do, the west can help and respond to requests and helped ukrainians build their capacity on all levels to be able to secure the borders, but also deliver the basic services that link those communities in those areas to

the central government. right now with all the propaganda they are getting from thugs, with the armed going back and forth and destabilizing wherever they can and starting problems like tossing in molotov cocktails into polling places, it raises doubts in the minds of the communities along the borders. my view is we need to help them assuage those doubts. a big piece of it is basic capacity building, so there is some semblance of governing authority. if i can return to something you said in your remarks, checking is key -- which i think is key, we think in the west that symbols are only long-term. i could not disagree more. what you're talking about is so important because sending signals, western support, and devotionation to not just ukraine, but to the entire region is essential. those communities that have

historically weaker links to central governments, where they are being bombarded with all isse mixed signals, it important they know that the community of democracies is there and will be there. so i think it sends -- it is a long-term signal that has an immediate payoff. it is terrifically important strategically. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate the discussion we are having on what our next path should be on sanctions, having spent the last several months in pretty close consultations with me european allies, color pessimistic that they are ready to take the next step. merkel can be described as stuck in her current position regarding robust caution on sanctions.

some european nations are not sitting still. they are moving the other way. senator johnson and i sent a letter to the french today asking them to halt their sale of warships to russians, the type of warships used in the invasion of crimea. i wanted to pin the five of you down on your exact recommendation for us on sanctions, as we have a good conversation about this. assuming the europeans are not willing to move with us on the next level of sanctions and to use ambassador jeffrey's and elegy, a move from kitty sanctions to tiger sanctions, would you recommend that the united states precipitously move forward unilaterally with tions,al-based sanc regardless if the europeans are ready to move with us, if you

could give us quick answers. >> it is nice to see all my former colleagues on the committee. i do not think that unilateral sanctions work well. we have seen this movie in iran. i would put maximum pressure on europe and hope that angela merkel could be helpful to do this. it is in their interest to do this. it would be cheaper in the long run to do this. but if europe will not go along i would move to larger, individual sanctions because getting at more of these folks does get at the energy section. a lot of them are major players inthe energy sectioor russia. a lot of the sanctions imposed to date have had a big fight on russia. >> i think we need to push and see if we can do sanctions with europe, but if europe will not go along, i would agree more individual sanctions. i would also target families.

there are ways to keep people who want to travel from coming here. -- sod look at it and much of the international commerce is denominated in dollars. maybe look at sanctioning one major russian bank. could the united states do that, that should have some russianions on the academy, and we would have to calculate what effect that would be against the u.s. economy. if welateral sanctions, cannot get concerted ones with european, but we have to be careful. they should be designed to persuade, not promote the europeans, because detaining solitary with these -- solid guarantee -- solidarity with these guys is very important. >> speaking only for myself, i think one of the least reported stores in recent months is what

has been happening in moscow, and the fact that putin has taken a number of steps to impose restrictions on his own people and to shut down dialog, which means he obviously fears the effects of sanctions. as you haveis that, heard here, that ratcheting up individual sanctions and family sanctions are important signals, and i think we should constantly be pushing our european allies and remind them of the lines that have already been crossed in an effort to try to get broader sectoral sanctions. >> i would just make the point and thehink ukrainians seernational community crimea as lost, at least for the short term. i do not think we could afford to see effective occupation -- twoee de facto operation in inces inive provoin

eastern ukraine. whatever can be done to find moscow accountable would be very important. >> my second question. in much broader question about the future of nato and the future of article five protections. i agree europe will certainly react if there is a movement of troops across the border. and the idea is is that they are protected under the mutual defense covenant in nato. russia is perfecting a new form of warfare in which they do not march troops across the border, in which they very slowly but methodically contested areas, gain control of areas with tactics like bribery to provocations. this is a longer-term challenge for us. his article five still a sufficient protection for

countries along russia's order? -- border? >> yes, it is, as long it is backed with a real hit ability. that is why the u.s. president has put light infantry alon g those borders. i would hope it would be heavier forces reinforced with native. the light green men were facilitated i the presence of 40,000 traditionalist forces along the border that scissors, paper, rock, blocked ukrainians effectiveg more military action. he has got a sophisticated set militaryry and paira steps. a stronger military with u.s. forces there come as we had in berlin and other places, so we know there may be only a few americans, but there may be more tomorrow. >> a slightly different version

of the question. that say tactics he mused in eastern ukraine were used in romania or bulgaria. let's say russia was actively funding separatist movements within those nations. does notsion is that trigger article five, but should we be having a discussion about whether that protection is sufficient? >> i think we should have a discussion about how to meet our nato obligations, article five is central to that. i think the other nato members have to put more into the fight, both in terms of resources and money, and final point on sanctions, which i forgot. a senior russian official recently suggested we yank their visas for russian duma members to go to the south florida. that would really get their attention, and i think that is urope couldhat e

go along with, even if south florida and the south of france would lose money. if 150 localns protesters seize a television station in eastern estonia? discussion have that in advance so nato has an answer ready. if that happens it will not be useful if nato debates whether that is an article five contingency. >> a good point. thank you. >> thank you for being here, and i would like to pursue that line of questioning and little bit, because it is my understanding that over the next few weeks the nato defense ministers are working to develop a readiness action plan. i wonder if you all could talk a little it about the kinds of things that we ought to be thinking about, not with respect to ukraine, but with respect to some of the other countries in eastern europe that are

potential targets for this kind of russian activity, and what kind of response we ought to be thinking about from nato. should we have a more assertive position, rhetorically, or in terms of other symbolic actions that we could be taking now that would help send a very strong signal, both to russia about taking further actions, but also to our allies about our support for them? so i do not know who -- if you would like to speak to that. 8097, nato haso tried to be nonproductive in terms of its military deployments in countries that joined the 1999 on. there has not been permanent appointments in place -- deployments in place. the russians have fundamentally changed the rules. now it is time to consider

something the pentagon uses the term persistence toward some kind of a permanent literary presence. i do not think these have to be large units or have significant -- but that triple arrow worked and kept -- free for 35 years. it bothers me a bit, and i have truck to talk to my european friends about this, when you look at permanent deployment now in the three baltic states and poland, you have one american airborne company, 152 troops in each place. it should not be just american. it would be great if we had four veryries, that would be good in two ways, in terms of sending a signal to moscow that the article five commitment is shared by all nato allies and would send a good signal to capitol hill where at some point you may be asking question why this is just an american burden.

>> i agree, and i wonder if any of you are willing to speculate on why they have been so reluctant to do that. is it because of the concerns about the relationship with russia and the trading opportunities and their dependence on energy, or is there something else going on? agreement, the 1997 and if you look at the language thet, it is clear, conditions, and it said explicitly, under the current and foreseeable conditions, we will not be making large permanent deployments. so it is clear that if the conditions have not changed under what we have seen in last few months, they will never change. about largealking and permanent. we are talking about a few companies, from various countries am falling in what we would call battalion packages, with the other four companies on alert ready to be flown in immediately and falling on their equipment.

that could happen very rapidly. i sought in kuwait. that could very rapidly and rate 5000 troops. the berlin brigade was a trip wire, but if you remember those pictures of checkpoint charlie, it was a trip wire with m-60 battle tanks. when you have a conventional military capability, you block the ability of putin to intimidate the reaction to the infiltration, the little green men, little seizures of things along the borders, because people can deal with those as police problems without having to worry about 10,000 russian troops coming across the border. i think that is worth exploring more. i want to change the subject. i am sorry i had another hearing so i was not able to get here to hear your testimony. i wanted to explore the economic situation in ukraine, because early in this crisis one of the

views that we heard economy if ukrainian does not improve, it creates a situation where the whole country could fall. i wonder if you could economy does not -- i do who wants to address this, but if you could speak to where we are in terms of economic assistance for ukraine, to what extent do we think that is having an impact there. is there more we should be and are we seeing the austerity measures that are being called for having a negative effect in a way that is challenging? and then corruption. are we seeing any potential who wants to address this, but if you couldpositive s corruption in a way that we think will have long-term effects? said more we have all

or less the same thing, but i think i am the only mother and grandmother on this panel. and we need tough love to hear. everyone cares about ukraine's economic future, but ukraine has to care about ukraine's economic future. piece is huge. if resources from the west go into mcmansions for a few accounts, or fat bank wherever, that is unacceptable, and we have already seen that. the poroshenko government which starts saturday has to move out smartly and he says he has to do that. there will be austerity easures ricard for imf -- measures required for imf loans. when you tell somebody your gas bill will go up by 100% or more, that is hard to hear. this is the time, the third chance for ukraine for this

government to say to folks, you have fought and died in maidan, you want a different kind of government, this is what it will take. afterward you this, the aid will, and we will build a non-corrupt country with a sensible jobs programs and your future will look brighter. ukraine has an offer in the next two years from the imf and other institutions and $35$25 billion billion. the other bit of good news, my understanding is when the imf team with ukraine in march to talk about the program, a set for the first time in dealing with ukrainians in 20 years from ukraine said here's the problem, here is our to do list. they know technically what they have to do. they understand their ability to access that 25 billion dollars will be tied to implementation

of reforms. the big question is can they sustain the support for the austerity measures. raised the price of heating. a great time, because nobody needs it. in december, when people see is whenlls up 60%, that the government says we have to do this for the next couple of years because this is key. >> my time is up. >> thank you. there has been polling in ukraine for a long time, and we have conducted two polls before the election and of course the polls in election. the hood news is the ukrainian people have eyes open. they understand the path ahead is not going to be an easy one. the polling shows that they are prepared for tough measures and difficult steps. the poll also shows that the leash may be a short one. my own judgment is as long as

the government sends clear signals that it is moving to take on corruption there is some hope they will take on these theyvating factors, then have a mandate, then they have the capacity. ukrainian people are well educated. ukrainian people know what they are up against. maidan is very much still front and center to them and close to their hearts, and those who tragically were killed in the madain. there is a sense of euphoria tempered by realism. as long as they take those clear steps the mandate is there. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. there is an old saying that if you give a person a fish you feed them for a day. you teach them how to fish, you feed them for a lifetime. so that is what we are really talking about here.

leaste is the second energy efficient country in the world. second from the bottom. if it just improved, level,st to poland's will put back all the natural gas it inputs. teach a country to fish. natural gasuntapped resources. vast, third in your ear it teach -- third in europe. teach a country to fish. that would scare russia. that would petrified russia. i would be the ukrainian people banding to gather themselves and say we must do this. i introduced a bill this morning to deal with this -- of ukraine,

that doubles of funding for the state department and usaid, export-import bank, development agencies, to deal with this issue, both the energy efficiency and natural gas development inside their own country. to leverage programs that are already there, but to bring in our expertise to help them tell us about the timeframe it takes for them to do it. that is without question where we have to be, as a nation. that is our opportunity. and exporting lng from our country? wet their homes for a day, can do that, but that is not where we should be. i will say parenthetically, for those who are criticizing president obama's plan on monday that epa announced to reduce our greenhouse gases and decrying increase of electricity

rate, they are the same republicans who are exporting our natural gas to increase our willomestic rates, that it dwarf any increase that comes from the announcement on monday is doing.e epa that is a concern. to this subject, which we should be able to work together on in a bipartisan basis, that that is where we should become and that is what we should be leveraging. you are an expert on this, congresswoman. can you talk about energy efficiency, about this whole area, and how dramatically people believe it can make as a difference, given your own experience with your lighting legislation here in america? you really do know this issue cold. >> thank you, senator markey. it is interesting to see you at the bottom of the queue of the committee. this is new for me. >> humility is a good thing to have. >> you're very humble now.

>> i am proud of my humid lity. >> you mentioned lightbulbs, which were a bipartisan initiative and pass on a bipartisan basis, and efficient lightbulbs seems like a little thing. it saves a huge amount of energy. we also did building standards and fuel efficiency and a number of other things. i cannot vote here any more, but i certainly support your initiative to help c i can vote here anymore but i certainly support your initiative to help countries help themselves. it's a point we have all made about tough love in ukraine. they have to take the steps that we could give them the tools that would help them take these steps. i think others may want to comment but i think this is a very good angle. finally using our asymmetric strengths against