from public affairs books now if able for a father's day gift at your favorite bookseller. >> president obama has praised the new president-elect of ukraine, petro proshenko, and a thursday president obama urged russia to open talks with the new government. also thursday witnesses at a senate foreign relations committee hearing offered policy recommendations and urged for

additional economic sanctions on russia. this is just over two hours. go. >> the committee will come to order. twant to welcome our panelists and thank them for taking time co to or to share their perspective with committee on developments in ukraine, which appear only slightly less ominous than they did in act one of this crisis. now, we're in the beginning of t act twhao with the successful election of a president by the ukrainian people, intion of pren internationally certifie certifd elections, which is a victory for ukrainian's struggle for freedom. divisions between east and west, significantly president petro poroshenko won districts from one end of ukraine to the other.

it seems clear that with russia's violation of sovereignty, it unified ukrainians better than before. the challenges president poroshenko has are daunting. he must rebuild an economy weakened by the previous presidents corruption. while countering prudent in the east. we are committed to working with , tonew government consolidate ukraine's democracy and economy. and withstand possible attacks from these. president putin seeks to undermine the new government and east, discord with the seeking a long-term ability to control and direct ukraine's politics and policies. catherine the great said, "i have no way to defend my borders extent -- except to extend

them." that has renewed poignancy today. obama'se president announcement this week of a european reassurance initiatives that will increase our presence across europe and build the capacity of our friends such as georgia, moldova, ukraine, so they can better work alongside the united states and nato as well as provide for their own defense. in my view, there are three things that are crucial for ukraine's future -- president poroshenko must build the ukrainian government that is capable, transparent, accountable, and strong enough to meet foreign and domestic challenges. second, the ukrainian government will have to accommodate the rest of citizens in the east while gaining control from foreign directed forces elsewhere. third, the ukrainian economy must be resurrected, including decreasing energy in dependency on russia. at the end of the day, the creation of a viable, successful

ukraine capable of resuming its sovereignty is an unfinished legacy of the cold war and will take time. it is a necessary goal that requires the commitment and operation of the congress, the executive branch, and our allies working together. corkerturn to senator for his remarks. >> mr. chairman, thank you. thanks to our expert witnesses here who will be helpful to us. especially the last one, who just came in well-dressed and looking sharp. i do want to congratulate the people of ukraine for the election that just occurred. ,e had a lot of observers there including jane harman, who just walked in, and many people, many of our colleagues. poroshenko, who many of us had the opportunity to meet over the course of time, is the person today.

there are tremendous issues to forcome, and ukraine getting the external effect that russia has over the country. there are tremendous corruption issues, energy issues, democracy and 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. obviously it looks like they are back and forth between trying to negotiate with this new government and create alliances there and at the same time continuing to destabilize the country in other ways. 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 our president announced the need for

new sanctions in russia. i look forward to hearing what the witnesses have to say about that. numbers of us have joined together pushing for that kind of thing. but the fact is we have tremendous challenges there. just having come from eastern europe, the stability in that region, the concern for security is paramount right now. they have seen russia doing what it has done, so the fact is we have not only the issue of ukraine to contend with -- and again, i know there is a likeness in that regard -- but they need to show tremendous strength and perseverance relative to eastern europe in general. a very important issue of great geopolitical significance. thank you all for being here, and i look forward to questions. >> let me introduce our panelists. harman, able jane

former colleague of mine in the house. we welcome her back to the committee. we also have former ambassador pfeiffer, whoven is now with the brookings institution. our third panelist is former assistant to the panelist -- to nowpresident james jeffrey, the distinguished visiting fellow of the washington institute. next is mark green, former ambassador to canton neah and member of the house of representatives. someone who is no stranger to the committee. let me welcome you all to the committee. i will advise you that all of your full statement will be included in the record. without objection, we ask you to summarize in about five minutes or so, and we will proceed in the order in which i introduced you. you are first. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, ranking member corker. both of you are dear friends of

mine and former colleagues. also friends of the wilson center, and i appreciate being invited. everyone on the lineup is a close friend, and i was very proud to be a member of the ndi delegation in ukraine a week and a half ago. it is the eighth election i have observed. it matters to have them in countries and to have teams with them who can get around. in that connection on the day before the election in ukraine, my small group headed by former secretary of state madeleine albright met all the leading candidates, including petro poroshenko, who impressed me as a man capable of leading his country. it was impressive to see his in norma's victory that his enormous -- his in norma's victory. wouldn't a lot of us like to see that kind of victory, 55% to 60%, avoiding a runoff. third chancene's

to get it right. ukraine got it wrong after the orange revolution. a series of governments were andect and. -- were corrupt not competent. this is chance three, and it will either work or he will be three strikes and you are out. i don't think ukraine will get a chance like this again. second point -- the west obviously needs to help ukraine, and president obama announced that ukraine and -- ukraine has to help ukraine. this is the transfer ukrainians to take responsibility for their future. many ukrainians get that. i think there are five things that president poroshenko needs to do. ukraine and east tell the folks there. he says he is going to do this. he favors some form of decentralization that is ukraine and he

wants them to serve in his government. the current acting president turchynov was in east ukraine year the day, and i thought that was a good move. the crowd that demonstrated in newone so bravely in the government, some of them want to serve, some of the current government members, 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. third, and force the anticorruption laws. there are some on the books and if they need to be stronger make them stronger. it is true that poroshenko is himself an oligarch, as are most of the folks in senior leadership positions in ukraine, but this is his chance to show that he is going to lead his country, not just had his bank account. -- not just pad his bank account.

need to be taken to qualify for imf and eu loans. and fifth, welcome the ukrainian diaspora back. there are many who can help their country. then comes the tough issue, and you mentioned this, senator corker. what to do about the russians and the unrest in the eastern part of ukraine. i think it is time for a united europeans,the president obama, and others, on president prudent to stop this violence. i assume there are some crazies he cannot stop. given arms.ng the border has to be policed, the flow of arms has to be stopped, and vladimir putin should tell the separatists to lay down their arms. second, we do need more sanctions. i would say that these sanctions against the banking industry and the economic industry -- and the

energy -- the economic sector and the banking sector have to -- iposed, and i know rudy know europe is reluctant, but chancellor merkel has to be a board with this. thank you. mr. chairman, senator corker, distinct members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today about the ukraine and russia crisis and the u.s. policy response. i have a written statement for the record, which i will summarize. ukrainians went to the polls in large numbers on may 25, in an election that met international democratic standards. petro poroshenko won and historic victory. he now faces significant challenges. he must find a way to manage

eastern ukraine. he must oversee implementation of the economic reforms in ukraine's program with the international monetary fund. he must address the budget of decentralization of power. mr. poroshenko also faces a major challenge is dealing with russia. unfortunately, by all appearances, vladimir putin remains i opposed to their desie to draw closer to the european union. russia seeks to destabilize the ukrainian government. there is no evidence that moscow has used its influence with the armed separatists in ukraine's east urge them to de-escalate the crisis. to the contrary, russia appears to support and encourage them. indicate thatts arms and fighters and supplies flow. the interests do not mean it should resort to force, sees ukrainian territory, or support separatism.

the u.s. policy response appears to have three vectors -- targeted assistance to help ukrainian reform. where washington should do more is military assistance. the ukrainian military needs help in strengthening its capabilities. using basic equipment such as tents. the decision for body armor and night vision goggles is welcome if it is overdue. it is also appropriate to consider providing light anti-armor weapons and manned portable air defense systems particularly since ukrainian military illuminated many of its stocks. aimed tod factor is reassure nato allies in the baltic and european regions who are more nervous about moscow's intentions after seizing crimea. military forces have deployed with the objectives of

reassuring allies of nato's commitment to their defense and they have underscored that commitment to moscow. on tuesday the president oppose a $1 billion program to increase the u.s. military presence in central europe. congress should approve expedited funding for that. the third sector has sought to penalize russia with the goal of effecting a change in moscow's course on ukraine. leaders, the u.s. -- theent has worked sanctions to date, although modest, appear to have an impact. projections of russian gdp growth for 2014 have been reduced, and bloomberg reports no russian company has been able to sell foreign currency bon nce marc sanctions however have failed in their primary political purpose. russia has not significant altered its course on ukraine, more robust sanctions should be

applied. these could include expanding the list of russians targeted for financial sanctions, applying targeted sanctions on the financial sector of russia beginning with the sanction of the least one major russian financial institution as opposed to smaller pocket banks and blocking western companies from their investments to develop oil and gas fields in russia. in considering sanctions washington should be smart where possible it makes and to the scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. should avoid measures that are counterproductive. washington should increase to pull together package for some other countries divisions. these could provide a basis for stabilizing ukraine. the big question is whether the criminal would be prepared to support the subtle. mr. chairman, senator corker, members of the committee, the ukrainian prices will likely continue for some time. the challenges facing will not prove easy but we should remember ukraine has good economic potential. many ukrainians seem to recognize that they have a

precious second chance to turn the country around. after the missed opportunity of the orange revolution. u.s. policy should main -- aim to maximize policy. this will be important for the people of ukraine and for a more stable and secure europe. also the best rebuke to moscow's policy would be to see ukraine in several years am looking more and more like poland. and normal democratic rule of law and increasingly prosperous european state. thank you for your attention. >> anti. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, senator corker, members of the committee. again i very much appreciate being here today. the russian aggression against ukraine is the most serious challenge the international order since 9/11. as such, this crisis requires action at three levels. the first of the immediate steps that have been taken and are being taken to deal with the

phenomenon itself. as the acting national security advisor with president bush during the 2008 innovation of georgia, i believe that the administration under similar circumstances have done all in all a good job dealing with the russian incursion into crimea and now eastern ukraine. it is not challenge russian military on the ground at a think that's a wise decision, given the stakes and given the difficulty of deploying u.s. troops. on the other hand, it is used economic sanctions, and every diplomatic tool possible and in particular brought along an 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 important as my colleagues have noted, the will of the ukrainian people represented in

the elections and the willingness of people even in eastern ukraine to support a unified sovereign ukraine. the russians have had to change their tactics somewhat, less direct military a christian, more indirect forces but nonetheless as my foreign service colleague steven pfeiffer just said, the strategy that putin is followed remains the same, to destabilize ukraine and ensure it can never be a sovereign country able to choose its own future, which i believe would be with the west, and defend itself against falling under russians way. that's the second level we need to look at additional steps. the administration has announced a number of good moves this week. the senate in the draft preventing russian aggression bill has come up with others. i have my own. i will just touch on a few. first of all i would second

ambassador hyper. we did to provide not just mres, although they are needed, but weapons and advisory teams to help the ukrainian to deal with this insurgency in peace. with much experience and stability operations. they need to know how to use military force while reaching out to the population. secondly, we need as the president said very rapidly deploy significant, heavy, that his arm are heavy, pre-positioned stocks and vocational forces along the borders of nato's east. again, the president is moving toward on this. they should not 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 along with ours, as we did it several times during the cold war. we have mentioned economic support for the ukraine. that's very, very important, ma

and their president poroshenko will have to do a lot of work and so because a lot of money has gone into the ukraine without much result. finally, as mentioned in your draft bill, we need to do more to wean europe from a russian gas and from russian of financial investments and other pressures. the our ways to do this that would have immediate and more important long-term affects. the long-term issue i want to dwell on for a little bit because that's the third order of magnitude we have. 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 pushed into this by nato's expansion is. i was involved at a certain level on those decisions about 20 years ago, and while perhaps that could've been done differently, the point is as

nato moved east it also stood down the vast majority of its conventional forces. russia did not do the same. the u.s., the eu, the international community tried for 20 years with tens of billions of dollars to integrate russia into the international community in every way possible. the result is a russia that is trying to expand again using 18th century models. at this point we have to consider the stock likelihood not just of russia might possibly china as well, close a more chide -- thai director, americas guarantor of that system. we need to start thinking as a country, as and the lines and as a global community about the implications of this. if we wished to avoid a geostrategic shift, estimate as 1989, only in the other direction, maintaining the integrity of this international order, including is needed by force, must be a monk our vital interest. thank you very much, senators.

>> ambassador during. >> thank you, mr. chairman, chairman menendez, senator corker, members of the committee. i appreciate this opportunity to testify on recent government in ukraine. i will summarize my written test and an try not to repeat what others have said. our mission is to encourage democracy in places where it's absent, help democracy become more effective where it's in danger, and share best practices for democracy is flourishiflourishi ng. given that mission it's only natural that ukraine has been at the support of a programming for more than 20 years. and additional primary office in kiev with office in mud-gas and until result in 20. including the most recent election on may 25. our high level mission was led by senator ayotte, colleague, and co-led by congressman, co-chair of the house democracy

partnership. we visited more than 100 polling places come places like kiev and odessa. the preparation for the elections we trained more than 5000 observers from political parties and the maidan. in the view of our observation, these elections were free and fair and that international standards. of course, what makes it so remarkable, the wide range of challenges being faced by administering these elections. in many ways the challenges of remain and need urgent attention, and perhaps the help of the west. the -- as others have noted, one very obvious challenge they face in recent months, russia sponsored violence in the south, east. separatist use high-grade cutting edge tactics and equipment, widespread cases of violent groups taking over radio stations, establishing checkpoints and in one case shutting down an airport. well-equipped bands of military style forces sought to shut down

the elections in parts of the country and into places they succeeded. another challenge that was and is important, and they don't think has received enough attention is the plight and tragedy of the crimean tartare's. the history of suffering of a tart our people is well known. stalin's forced deportation resulted in the death of tens of thousands of partners, and they're only able to return to their ancestral homeland at the end of the soviet union. they now make up nearly 18% of the crimean population. they avoid a boycott of the illegal crimean march referendum and rejected its results and the kennedy has repeatedly pledged his continued support for united and sovereign ukraine. obviously, their coverage might not have the approval of moscow. since the beginning of our work in ukraine, we sought to assist the democratic aspirations of the tatars people. we work with them closely to build committee patient exchanges and to try to link

them up with particularly young people from western europe and other parts of ukraine. unfortunately, we are unable to continue the program in occupied crimea, and we would very much like to return and find ways to help this population. in any case in light of the russian annexation and the soviet history, we should all be very watchful of how the tatars are able to live and work and hopefully prosper in the face of russian rule. in some ways the most recent challenge of ukraine is facing, i would argue, is the overwhelming force of russian propaganda that is projected into the country. combined with the lack of ukraine immediate and social media in certain areas. it is hard for any nation to build a sense of national purpose and unity when there's a lack of indigenous media. it is nearly impossible when the void is filled with hostile, foreign-born propaganda bent on

destabilizing communities and government bodies. we should work to help foster independent truly ukraine centric media that can reach out to every part of the country. more and more people, especially young people, now get the news and information through social media platforms. again, there's a lack of social media platforms that are ukraine centered in parts of the country, and that he believed that we can help boost social media platforms that will help create a sense of unity and identity. one of the most subtle and yet a series challenges that ukraine is faced and will continue to face is a weekend i.t. infrastructure. recent reports suggest that much of the government i.t. has been compromised by foreign sponsored viruses. on the day of the election the iri delegation learned that rush had launched a major cyber attack aimed at bringing down the center election commission main database.

had it succeeded, the elections would have failed and perhaps given ukraine's opponents further pretense for mischief, aggression and destabilizing activity. in this day and age, effective the i.t. is absolutely necessary for effective democracy and governance. members of the committee, it's too easy to focus on the challenges in ukraine. we should also focus on the hopeful signs. as my colleague, jane harman, has noted, president-elect poroshenko has taken significant steps to move the country forward. he has indicated he will retain current prime minister and other members and the current government antistatist top priorities are to maintain the unity of the country by reaching out to the eastern regions, tackling corruption and creating jobs. mr. chairman, recent events in ukraine make clear both the challenges and possibilities that lie ahead. the fact that ukrainians in the span of a few short months were

able to remove from office a corrupt but powerful leader and then turn around and conduct national elections that met international standards is remarkable. the fact that all of this was accomplished in the face of threats and violence is historic. to be clear, as my former colleague jane harman has said, the ukrainians, not the friends in the west, were responsible for shaping the country's future. they have unique history and a rich culture that is all their own, if they want to chart a path that meets their own needs and aspirations, not anyone else's. one of our staff probably said to us recently, we went to the maidan to find europe, and instead we found ukraine. it's a great moment for ukraine and potentially a great moment for democracy. think you mr. chairman. >> mr. wollack? >> mr. chairman, senator corker, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to comment on recent develop months

in ukraine. with support from usaid as well as the national endowment for democracy and the department of state and the governments of sweden and canada, india has conducted democracy assistance programs in ukraine for the past two decades. most recently we feel a delegation for the election which was led by ndi chairman madeleine albright and former spanish foreign minister, and we're also fortunate to have jane harman as part of the leadership of the delegation. ukraine has turned a corner onto a decisively 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 external threat from russia which has illegally occupied crimea. rushes back to operation in eastern, about an undeclared war

against ukrainian sovereignty. on the domestic front the challenges are no less daunting if economy is in crisis, corruption by all measures has been rampant and public confidence in political institutions is low. where there' there has been ongg support in both the east and the west of the country for ukrainian unity, there are divisions over the distribution of governmental power. external forces are working to exploit and politicize these divisions through a campaign of disinformation. the euro maidan demonstrations were sparked by anger over the government's refusal to sign a european union treaty. but they were sustained for three months by a more basic demand for dignity. they introduce accountability to citizens as a requirement of governments. however, the redistribution of power from the leads to citizens will be sustainable only if civic and political leaders find post-maidan 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. one of the next future maidan hopefully unnecessary. the first test of ukraine's ability to navigate this transition was a may 25 presidential election. and by every measure, ukraine passed that test. this was perhaps the most important election in ukraine's independent history. where they were allowed to cast ballots and the vast majority of the country, ukrainian voices came through loud and clear. they voted for sovereignty and democracy, and he did so not with celebratory fanfare, but with sober determination. in observing elections in more than 60 countries, including previous post in ukraine, rarely has in the eye hurts as positive about the process from political contestants and nonpartisan monitors alike. after president-elect poroshenko

inauguration this weakened, the government will need to pursue practices that incorporate the interest of ukrainians from all regions of the country. he and other leaders will need to focus as much on process as on policy outcomes. delivering on citizens expectations will be impossible without encouraging meaningful public participation. be on the urgent need for economic reforms and the diversification of trade and energy supply, these expectations include constitutional changes, including decentralization, serious anticorruption measures. the number one priority for ukrainians throughout the country, and judicial reform. since february the government and the parliament have enacted an impressive set of reforms and civil society organizations are helping to shape an ambitious

agenda. i draw your attention to the reanimation package of reforms, an impressive civil society initiatives to improve the election laws, procurement practices, education policy and access to public information among other issues. i listening to and consulting with citizens and communicating into terms how short-term sacrifices will lead to longer-term improvement, government leaders can help smooth the path to results. for political parties that counsel be to to build support from the grassroots up and face policies and strategies on citizens concerned. this will require parties to embrace new ways of organizing. the euro maidan movement shows that citizens can wield considerable political power. but i their very nature, street protests, sustained popular participate requires leadership and structures. channeling the energy of euro maidan into the day-to-day and

admittedly less excited basis of reform and governance is the next hurdle. these efforts need to be disseminated more widely throughout the country. it will be important for the national dialogue on injured rights and representation for all ukrainians to accelerate and keep it. this process which is now underway would benefit from broader and more active participation from civil society. the impact of past u.s. assistance to ukraine is more visible now than ever before. years of corrupt and inept governance that much of ukraine's promise. but a sustained support from the u.s. nonetheless help democratic groups get established, expand, achievement skills, and survived through political hardship. also in the new political environment, partners or just assistance projects can be found among the most active reformers in the government, parliament, political parties, and civil society. ukraine now needs help in all of

its priority reform areas. ukrainians political and civic leaders have been unanimous in requesting such support. there are major financial needs to be sure. in addition, ukrainians are eager for technical assistance, to keep your contact linkages to international counterparts. just as ukraine problems will not be solved overnight, international games need to expand, and aim for the long-term. thank you very much. >> well, thank you all for your testimony. before i start a round of questioning let me recognized that the ukraine ambassador is here and welcome you, mr. ambassador, to this hearing. the g7 statements as we stand ready to intensify targeted sanctions and to consider significant additional restrictive measures to impose further costs on russia should

events so require. but as i listened to what i think was a majority of you, it would seem to me that the collective you here, and correct me if i'm wrong, is that time is already here. am i wrong in what i've heard, or or is that basically what you are saying? >> yes, the time is here, senator. >> yes. the russians i think are certainly involved in what's going on in eastern ukraine and they have the power to stop that if they wish. >> and yes, our asymmetric strength against russia is our economic power. very economy even before -- very economy before the sanctions was in bad shape and it's gotten worse. and by doing this, quickly, although it will be some short-term pain for europe in particular, it will be long-term, medium and long-term gain for europe and for us.

we have an energy sector obviously that could export a substantial amount of energy to europe. >> now, thank you the position of western leaders have previously was that if russia interfered in the conduct of the elections, the more sanctions would be coming. i think it's clear that they did, in fact, take a number of steps to interfere with the selection 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 was emanating from russia's? >> that was actually brought to us by our ambassador, u.s. ambassador in kiev and has been reported although not as widely as reported, quite frankly, as i think it deserves. but while they were able to fight it off, it laid bare what a number of people have been suggesting, that is that so much of the infrastructure system, which is operated by russian supporters government officials,

has been infiltrated and is weakened and that seems -- >> and had they been successful, then they could have undermined the veracity of the election and, therefore, pursued their goals. so i think your point is well taken. at me ask you this. what do you think from your experiences? is prudence calculus in terms of what will -- i know what his calculus is. although i think i know what it is the what is going to affect his calculus in a way that changes russia's course of events under his leadership? >> i would argue that the possibility is more intense western sanctions could, could, not necessary, affect his cactus but if you look at what's happening to the russian economy, it was already in difficult in 2013 but the sanctions and the threat of more robust sanctions have increased the problems with the russian

economy. the questionnaire, many russian economist go back as a blow to putin as this implicit social compact with the russian people which he says you are not going to have much in the way of political freedom but in return you're going to get economic security, a growing economy and high living standards. and mr. putin delivered spectacularly on that between 2000-2008. last year, some russian economists were saying even if the projected growth in 2014 of 2% would not be enough for mr. puti putin to hold of his io the bargain sony to try to increase the pressure. i should say when my college at brookings who's very knowledgeable of russia, his concern is wha what will happens it me play devil is that mr. putin may seize on the sanctions and then use that as the excuse to blame the west for the economic difficulties and then use that to his own economic mismanagement. i would argue it is just the prospect of changing his calculus in a way that makes them change the policy, the west should do because of the egregious nature of russia's

action in the last couple of months. >> let me add that it is the economy, stupid, and the point in russia right now showed nationalism running high, but over time as the sanctions bite further committed to think there should be some sectoral sanctions done very carefully. i agree with ambassador pifer that the need to be done carefully, people in russia will have a lower standard of living. and let's understand that putin already has not learned colin powell pottery barn rule, if you break it you own. he now owns crimea, or at least temporary, is renting crimea. and he is stuck with a horrible economy and the need which is had to fulfill to increase the tensions and the payments for state workers in crimea and that's another hit on the russian budget. i think senator mccain is right when he says russia's economy is a gas station, rush is a gas station posing a as a country. emphatic is turned off at least

with respect to europe, that's a huge hit. he made a deal with china but i think that shows desperation. that doesn't show long-term advantage. >> i would like to add that i very much in favor of sanctions i think we've seen particularly some secondary effects of them. we should continue and strengthen them tried to keep the europeans on board because they will take most of the pain. nonetheless, i'm a little bit concerned if we think that, summon up briefly, 21st century values, economic development, people power and such, triumphs over oppression, over nationalism and over 18th and 19th century values. i'm not sure in the parts of the worldwide been deployed of that's true and i really don't think that is true with mr. putin because he is very clear in his goals, all with the russian people. his desire to see them a lot of support, is to re-create something like the old russian

imperial power as one of the great powers over much of the area around russia today stretching into eurasia and into 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 billion, $2 trillion economy, we have $30 trillion. we have six times the population, two or three times the number of horses under arms and far better equipped. why is he doing this and why is he seemingly having some success? because we are divided. we are not sure what the threat is, and in particular, we are reluctant, the u.s. to some degree of the europeans even more, to meet force with force. that's wha why it's important to take military moves while also strengthening the economic and political sanctions and strictures against him.

because he doesn't believe we are going to stand up for our values were as -- >> you would be supportive of the president's initiative on security and native speakers absolutely accept it should be contingent upon action. he has the authority, the equivalent, the troops to start doing this tomorrow. >> i would just like to make one point about russia's role in the election. we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that 70% of the electorate would guess insurance giant -- were disenfranchised. either because of the crimean -- the question remains with the fighting still going on in these areas where the russian goal is to make ukraine ungovernable. so the action to try to destabilize the country before, during, and after the elections continues. >> one file, i have a lot of questions that i have one final question before turn two senator

corker. what can poroshenko do in eastern ukraine, some have talked about the centralization of government. i'd like to exactly what you think that means because of course the russians wanted a federated system so they could take ukraine a part. i'm assuming not mean that. protections for the use of russian language, inclusion of more easterners in the government. do so if you have thoughts as to what poroshenko can do to try to consolidate the eastern part of ukraine as part of the national party politics? >> we don't want to dominate this at this end of the table that i was if i things, and i think the border with russia is absolutely crucial. and from all of the information that i've seen on the public record, there are truckloads of people who may or may not be russian but they're coming over to russian border and they are

mostly we think chechens of russian nationals. so closing the border to the kind of traffic is absolutely critical. ukrainians probably don't have the capacity to do that. obviously, the russians do, and i think having an international call on them specifically to do that right now would at least expose the role that they're playing. i think 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 as mr. wollack dissent. there are of course folks in crimea which we all of you as an occupied part of ukraine. most women couldn't vote either. >> mr. chairman, i would make the comment that i think mr. poroshenko said he would take his first trip as president to denounce the. he may find, it's important to

bear in mind majority of the population in each ukraine is ethnic ukraine. they may use russia as the first link which but their ethnic ukraine. and polls show very interesting things in the last several months. the polls show while many people in eastern ukraine were uncomfortable with what happened in terms of the change of power at the end of february and that they regarded the acting government as illegitimate, 70% wanted to stay in ukraine. they did not want separation, did not want to join russia. large majority criticized condemned the arms of seized of the building by the separatist but didn't know what you see the russian army. i think there's an audience he can appeal to. i think decent position of power to som some extent not as the se was right to go make sense. because ukraine government right now is overly centralized. for example, making regional governors elected as opposed to appointed by the president would be a positive step. pushing some budget authority out to the regions would be a positive step but in terms of more effective and accountable governance. also mr. poroshenko said that it would be some status of 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, in fact, begin to make the majority of the population in each ukraine feel more accountable that he's looking out for its political and economic interest and in the court -- and dedicate the support being backed by russia. >> mr. chairman, first off with respect to colin, either i have been a great deal of polling ambassador pifer is right. every part of the country, even in those areas in the far reach which may have wanted more economy from kiev, want to be part of ukraine. view themselves as ukrainians, didn't see discrimination and very much wanted to remain part of ukraine. i would argue that what president-elect needs to do is to take a look at what putin did in the lead up to these elections. putin sought to sow seeds of doubt, destabilize, send agents into shutdown reader stations

and so on and so forth. so what i think mr. poroshenko wanted to do, among other things, is to build, yeah, media that can communicate non-moscow messages, give an accurate picture, provide channels for ukraine is from all parts of the country to get together in social media platforms, to committee with each other, exchange ideas and finally i would argue that a significant exchange program which creates east-west, north south understanding inside the country to build a new generation of leaders which think of themselves entirely as ukrainians and not regionally i think is vital to import. again, based upon what we've seen from president putin, that's very much what he fears. >> senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i think it's good to know where people on both sides of the aisle who are pretty uniform

in their thinking about both ukraine and russia, and it's good to editing web a lot of that on our committee. though it seems to me, and very evident, we have a country that is underperformed, has missed 20 years if you will of development, and huge challenges within the country. then you have this other issue that is of major geopolitical significance to the world. they come together at ukraine on the border. and they affect much of our policy over the last 60 or 70 years that europe would be hold democratic and free. so we have two really big issues, and if ukraine does move to the west, it also creates internal issues to russia as russian people see a country evolving in a very different direction from where they are, and certainly a threat to their leadership. so let me just start, is there

anybody on this panel that doesn't leave that the new elected leadership which is impressive and is an oligarchy, i agree, congressman harman, at the same time he wasn't a state-owned enterprise he did make it, i will say the honest way, but a different way, then a lot of the oligarchs. is there any difference of opinion that is absolutely committed to making the transition that's necessary to be made within the country? does anybody feel like that's not the case? >> i hope he is committed. went to see what he does. we thought you cejka was committed. we thought he was the new leadership for ukraine and he turned out to be enormously disappointing. some people thought that he was the new voice of leadership and she turned out to be very disappointed. i think it matters what he does. senator corker, i just, maybe

one suggestion for the way you framed this. i think ukraine issue can. ukraine is a part of your. it is in part of russia. it is a country that is situated next to nato countries. 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 for ukraine is to have a somewhat decentralized government where ukraine can be both and certainly last year, that's in the interest i also think it's in ukraine's interest but i don't think it's russia would only back off, if we could get this to change. i don't think it would be bad for ukraine also to choose if it chooses to robust ties to russia state it's in parent that that's what the president plans to.

did you want to say something? >> i wish is going to say, i was one of those with a chance to meet with mr. poroshenko the day before the election. while i also agree the proof is in the pudding, it was impressive in laying out a clear agenda for what needed to be done, constitutional reform taking on corruption. so he certainly knows what to do. and, obviously, i believe that we should be there when requested to try to help them get there. >> i think in our meetings with the president-elect, with the prime minister, i think everybody understands the challenges that lie ahead. and i think they're all deeply committed to be -- they realize there is a second chance for meaningful reforms in the country. at the same time, i think we have to put our basic institutions and prophecies as well and not just individual. the parliament will play an important role, civil society

will play an important role, the question is whether all these various sectors of society can work constructively together in order to achieve the goals that we all share. >> well, i was impressed, and i think yatsenyuk is very impressive and hopefully the team will be put together to do things ahead. sentiment at the time i will stop here but i was going to pursue -- are there any thing, is there anything that the western countries that are involved in care about ukraine, is there anything other than i know you mentioned some military equipment and training that needs to take place, is there anything that you see the west not doing that should be done now? i know it has to be ukraine itself that makes this happen, couldn't agree more, but assistance from us is going to be needed, and persistence is going to be needed. is there anything that you see right now just if one person to

respond very briefly because i want to move onto something else. is there anything that you see that is missing right now in a complement of efforts that would be helpful to help them move a long? >> i would just mention two quick things. not one, i think the commitment is financial assistance, should not be caught up in bureaucratic hurdles. that funds have to go anytime the way. and second, as my chairman talked about him when madeleine albright talks about the market plan was not only about funding but was also about technical assistance. and when we met with the government there, they welcomed large-scale infusion of human resources in the country on all the major reform issues. they looked to the united states for expertise. they looked to the dias broke community for expertise. they looked for the pin, particularly poland, for those.

poland is engaged as well. i think civil service reform, out of all of these issues, having technical assistance on a large-scale embedded in ministries and governments, offices, civil society, this is all welcomed if they believe its international engagement is critical at this time. >> mr. jarba, i want to move onto the other topic, and that is russia. i had an executive in my office this morning. i won't name -- made a name or the country but i don't think would like that to occur, but you have this issue. you just mention this is a major geopolitical issue, the biggest that's happened since 9/11. and yet the tools that we are willing to use obviously are very different than the tools we used in 9/11. i agree, especially having just come from poland, romania and estonia, this is a major

geopolitical event, and how we respond to this is going to reverberate for generations. and so you mentioned sanctions, and many of us here have pushed for more robust sanctions. some people would say this executive would say that we push on one hand for globalization around the world to try and create, you know, democracy because we think that our way of doing business causes of the world to be a better place to i agree with that. and at the same time, companies all have become intertwined. they all work through joint ventures, and i couldn't agree more. i'd like to see more sanctions. i think we've already crossed whatever red line that we have crossed the red line and sanctions ought to be in place. so what happened -- for what happened in eastern ukraine. but how do you respond to the folks who come in, have to say don't have an impact on me in that way, but how do you respond

to people who say what you just said? and how to respond to the president when he talks about, well, we don't want ourselves to be split from europe. we don't want, we want to go with them. is that an appropriate place to be or what she would be even more forward for more we are today? >> in my view you have to stay pretty closely synced with europe, but we do seem to have in many respects an unusually robust ally in angela merkel compared with the rest of the germans or what we're in much of europe is, and so we can nudge her forward, and there's been some success the dish do you really see that? >> i would say that compared to her population and she's tougher than most germans. the overwhelming majority of the german population basically on every poll, or most polls show understanding for boone, and this is what we have to deal with. in terms of the economic issues, it's not a question of cutting russia out of the global

economy. we can do that. they are not iran. and that's basically not out argument within. the problem is they are able to use blackmailing, political leverage based upon some other economic activities. most notably selling gas to europe and secondarily, the way that russian funds are deposited the i spent almost an hour with putin in 2007 where he harped on this thin theme in a very unplet conversation with president bush. they see this as political weapons. so what you need to do is to diversify them and the best market economy tradition, for example, european gas purchases, and i know that that's in the draft bill, but there are other 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. ..ventually 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 so we end up in a situation where they exude extremely bad

behavior and we don't do much and we have this nation that has broken international law and agreements and in order to keep peace, we continue to go along in this bitter piece that in essence creates a lot of insecurity in eastern europe and causes people to question the united states. i know other people have questions. thank you mr. chairman. >> let me thank all of our witnesses for their extraordinary work for their participation in the monitoring of the ukrainian elections under the auspices. senator portman and i were there on the ground and had a chance to visit the polling stations and had a chance to meet with the leadership ofet country so we share your observations and i thank you very much and we very

much how similar observations. i want to just conquer in your overall concern that the international order of dealing with these types of incursions is very much in jeopardy and goes beyond ukraine. russia did and what they are doing in east ukraine violates commitments and we go through all of them but it's also being looked at in the china seas. ais there a concern about the south china seas? i heard about the east china seas and we were used by major powers elsewhere to resolve the territorial disagreements.

i just want to comment very wany strongly in support of your comments that we need to get nato involved because it doesn't involve the security of our nato alliance and we need to have an enforceable code of conduct in the china seas so that we can restore some resemblance of discipline and how we deal with the territorial disputes. i just really also want to underscore the points that have been made that we need to do in ukraine. congresswoman i completely agree with you that the protesters were much more fundamental than just taking sides on ethnic disputes. they want a country that responds to the needs of their people and they want a country free of corruption. its ridiculous commitment tit'so

get the country to perform at the level the protesters demand. we need to work internationally. the point of that was raised about bringing europe along with our policies is absolutely essential. and i really do think that president obama deserves great credit for being able to mobilize the europe and a more cohesive fashion and w than we e seen in other places of europe. but it does require attention to the economics and the fundamental economics and the deals also with energy and we very much need to be aggressive in the providing short-term and long-term alternatives to ukraine on their energy issues. it also involves sanctions. i think there is a total agreement here that we need to be tougher on sanctions and the sanctions work and that the threat of the sanctions have worked at the thread only works to a certain degree if you don't

deliver and russia's actions and the words that were given before hand indicate that it's time for us to move forward with additional sanctions. they have to be strategic and thought out in court a nation with europe, but i want to givet to another point that has been just talked about, and that is whether we can affect the balance of the border between ukraine and russia. right now as you pointed out, congressman, the people from russia that want to come into ukraine have no difficulty getting through that border. and yes it would be nice if president putin would do something about it and i think that we have to be very firm about that. but president putin doesn't do what he says, so i don't want to take his word that he will maintain the border as the ukraine incursion against russians.

so i think we have a responsibility to help build up the border security force ukraine. i think the united states and europe can play a pretty constructive role in strengthening the border security issues. they have a capacity here although they may make it difficult 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 border and i just would ask whether that would be a priority, should be a priority and whether that can effectively be carried down. >> 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. but in writing international organizations to help is right. they have an interesting position in the country. they convened roundtables, three

of them led by former and debate coach or manager asked her to the u.s. who is a scholar of the wilson center. very proud of him. and those roundtables began to achieve something that mark green is talking about which is the conversation in the country to unite all of the parts of the country. really good idea and they are going to continue. but it's interesting because it is a member organization that includes russia. and i was there indiana following my trip to ukraine and i was told that the way the procedures work, russia is kind of walked in for a six-month period to the actions in ukraine so it seems smart to get them vocalized doing exactly what you're talking about with help from nato to increase -- >> the mission is in ukraine and it's been there in that capacity. spirit and it is in east ukraine and to mobilize more resources at the border and then see.

he responds to strength. let's see them push against an organization that he is a member of that is just asking for reasonable border secure. trucks full of armed people who may or may not be rushing should be stopped. >> they are going to need technical assistance and equipment and they are going to need more than the international community is currently providing. >> i would say yes, surely. ukraine has a very undercapitalized defense system. but i would end with our strength against russia is our economic strength. i think that where we can stop russia more effectively -- and i think the sanctions are by far our most effective weapon. we talk about them where russia is weak with its economy and thus sanctions i think everybody here supports done intelligently and quickly could get a very rapid response. >> i am for that but i wouldn't trust russia to stop the blow

into ukraine. they need border security. >> if i could just add i agree we could do more to assist in terms of tightening up the border, but i think particularly in the short term, it's going to be difficult given the length of the border and my guess is as long as the russians were determined to get things across the border, they will find a way so in the short-term, the pressure of the additional sanctions on russia, we have to get russia to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. >> if i could add it but also remember the history of the brushfire battles. we also need to help the ukrainian government in that part of the country deliver. we need to build up a capacity infrastructure, help them deliberately six services and really provide the link to the government to those communities that they are looking for that have been taken apart by the destabilization activities of mr. putin that knocks out the radio stations and attempts to

sponsor these separatist movements success and a the governing capacity should also be a part of the solution. it's also important to create that sense of linkage into the national government. and in the community way they want to be ukrainian in the first place. >> senator, i agree with everything my colleagues have said that at the end of the day when you have laid out is a military problem and it's not a military problem that we are ignorant because we saw this in vietnam and in iraq and we see today in afghanistan where we have an insurgency supported in this case generated from across the border. it's a tricky problem as we have seen in those other places but there are ways to deal with this. first of all, all these things stated to strengthen the ukrainian government and

strengthen the support of the people and the economy leverages into the counterinsurgency strategy of stabilization that puts a minimum on the force although the force is necessary and a maximum under reconciliation and slowly moving in and picking the low hanging fruit as you are doing and he probably organized stability operations of the area controlled by the pro- russians does not expand. meanwhile at the same time you are putting it off pressure through sanctions through strengthening nato which is something they do not like watching the troops on the eastern borders and other western borders. to send a signal that it's just going to get worse if you keep this up and what are you gaining bit by bit ukraine is deepening its sovereignty and 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, so you need the political and the

economic status. you need to reach out to the population but it's also a military activity. >> regarding the impact of ukraine and other places you'll go by what the signing of the agreement later this month. they would be holding parliamentary elections in november and i think we have to have a watchful eye on what is happening. what will happen following the signing of the association agreement to very small and very vulnerable country close by. >> thank you mr. chairman. you received a business term which i like the low hanging fruit that has prioritization. now my colleagues on the republican side realize i really try and address any problems on the strategic planning process and what i would like to do is quickly go through something like that and i want to -- the

strategic planning process startstarts describing the real. you can't unite it. you have to bow down to the reality and then based on that reality setup your soul for achievable goals so i want to lay out my assumptions and i want to get your reaction particularly if you are disagreeing with me in terms of where i'm going wrong. the first assumption it makes no sense to russia with vladimir putin is doing. there is no economic sense. as a result, this is all about his ego. it's all about his ability to maintain control and power. number three, what gives him cover is his ordeal and gas. in his monopoly control over the supply which is quite honestly in the business customers should be in control not just of the supplier. here's another reality. i want to be somewhat contrary view to death. most of the harm that is caused to the russian economy occurs before any sanctions were imposed because the world does

recognize what he's doing because no economic sense and it's scaring investors, so he has done his own economic harm and that will continue regardless of what the west does and by the way the reality is because the sanctions are a double-edged sword, and mutually harmful. i don't believe the west will ever have the will to impose the kind of sanctions that will affect the calculus whatsoever. so when you talk about him i don't believe they will be imposed. by the way this may not be a bad thing. i would rather inflict pain on flaflood america with him and me him pay the price of us having to pay a price. so, that sets me up -- that is the assumption of the situation. from that now you establish your goals. for me the number one short-term goal that is obvious is ukraine must gain control over the east. does anybody disagree with that? okay. we need to help them. we can talk of sanctions and they won't get opposed.

but we can help them secure the east. so we need to do those things. that's number one. number two, when we are on the ground, we heard about the incredible effect of the propaganda coming from russia. we need to counter that aggressively. we can do that, can't we? so those are from my standpoint. the medium term and this is what was so hopeful about the protest is that it really was coming together. after 20 years they said okay we are sick of the corruption. so we need to do everything in terms of our actions. if we have to tidy aid or help to make sure that anticorruption laws are passed, we should do that. that's the medium term, because and others are part of the solution because we have to have a successful government in ukraine. and long-term, again, understanding what gives vladimir putin power.

we need to break that up. so we should be taking actions today to make sure that vladimir putin understands this monopoly will not be in place two or three or four years from now. so that is my way of thinking. here are the assumptions and here's the reality. and here are the goals that we can actually achieve. so where am i wrong? what am i missing? i will start with you, congresswoman. >> i generally agree. none of us mentioned russian television. but madeleine albright, who as i've mentioned 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 that she went and we don't en and the ukrainians dont have an effective counter so i commend you for putting that on the table i think it's a very important short-term goal. we discussed the border and more

needs to be done and on the medium term there are -- my understanding is there are now as a part of this package that can mentioned the reanimation package or at least what has been passed on today some strong anticorruption but there is a strong anticorruption law and the problem is that it is not enforced and that should be a huge early step of the government and hopefully that happens. on the long-term from absolutely break up the gas monopoly. i'm still hoping for sanctions that we have an opportunity in this country. tom friedman, the op-ed writer for "the new york times" has called it a grand bargain to get everybody to buy into a package of safe development of energy, safe transportation of energy and then export of energy. a variety of energy, not just lng to replace russia as the gas

station for europe. and there's another point senator marquee was going to be here. but i know he has the notion that we should help ukraine -- i think that we rehearsed this. hello to my former colleague. >> if we can talk about renewal energy i think that would rank pretty low. again we have to take a look at what's going to be the most -- speaking for the senator, which i have done for many years by his point is that ukraine is the least efficient user of energy in any of the countries in that region. >> the windows are open in the wintertime because it gets so hot. >> if we can produce the efficiency we would reduce dependence on russia so there are steps like that that we should be taking. >> i agree with most of the comments but i would make two points. one, i think there is value in sanctions -- connector you honestly think that they will be imposed to the point that -- again if we could actually

imposed then i think that it might affect vladimir putin at a cost to the west. so again because the cost to the west, do you honestly think they will be imposed? like the congressman said, you know, vladimir putin has crossed the line. you know, he has done what we said that he did when we were going to impose them and we haven't imposed them yet. >> i can see the sanctions that would have a serious impact. >> i'm trying to think what is achievable and possible. >> i think there's still a possibility so we should be trying to push, otherwise this is the first time since 1945 where a big country is using military force to take territory from a small country to europe. there needs to be some penalty for this. on the gas question, i think we should be doing things including looking at exporting american lng to begin to make it more difficult for gas.

but we do have to be realistic. europe gets about 30% of its gas from russia and only very slowly will wean itself away and which we find a way to encourage that. i would also agree with what james had about working with ukraine. ukraine has huge possibilities to get more efficient use of their energy to reduce their gas production. plus they also have a possibility perhaps in five to seven years of trying to reduce huge quantities of unconventional gas within ukraine. and if ukrainians make that happen it could actually be the situation whereby 2020, they perhaps could have with accommodation of drastic production and importing gas not just from russia that the west in the position that wouldn't need any gas from russia and that would be a very important change in this dynamic right now because ukraine's biggest economic vulnerability to russia is the fact that it depends on russia for about 6% of its natural gas. >> senator king.

>> i would like to continue on this line on energy because we have had a number of discussions in this committee. and while there are some sharp disagreements about things like the lng exports, i think there are also some strong agreement on whether it is hoping readers the flow of energy back to ukraine from some of its western or northern neighbors working with ukraine to develop its own energy capacity. algeria is interested in more exports of energy under the mediterranean to europe. you know, my sense is that with the natural resources the toughest thing we could do for them is to do just exactly what senator johnson's head and break up that monopoly. and so, we have to be looking at all of those opportunities even including potential resources like algeria that would like to shift more energy to europe. so it's not just what we can do although we can do a lot with other partners that want to help

out away from that monopoly is critical. i wanted to ask just about one topic and that is the polling about the east in the eastern area. you talked about that earlier, ambassador. the polling is pretty strong to huge numbers in the east do not want to be part of russia. they do not want to be severed from ukraine. but the polling is also pretty strong that they have a great distrust. and some of that has been because of the propaganda campaign from russia. but some of it was also because of the steps like this kind of effort to potentially strip away brush them as an official language in the population of ukrainian and ethnic speak russian as a first language. obviously, this is something that the president needs to address immediately. you talked about this effort about the president but maybe in a little more granular detail talk about the kind of things you think maybe the president

needs to do right out of the gate to start winning over eastern ukrainians in the notion that kiev wild beast a farming g us that we'll be including in the russian language. >> you just laid out some of it your self. i think it's important, and for the early steps in going to the east. but it's also begin to capacity building so that the government is seen as being able to deliver on some of the basic needs and wants in that area. i also wouldn't separate out what we have all been talking about in terms of corruption. one of the reasons why they are so angry is because econom the y was plundered by the previous president and all rights of corruption. in many ways that is what it was about. sure, there were events that sparked it in terms of backing out towards the eu but there was

also a basic anger towards the governmengovernment was riddledh corruption and unable to deliver and unable to provide the basic services. if you couple that with linking that part of the country in terms of the national bylaw through the media in tikri and e the youth network of the reform those may seem like long-term activities. i would argue they aren't. i would argue there are immediate steps that need to be taken. i think that each one of those steps that very important signals to that part of the country in addition to all of the other thing i things we havn talking about. so, in terms of what the members of the committee have been putting forward, my own view is all of the above. if we are looking for simple solutions, i am not sure they are there. i think we need to take a very comprehensive approach that has both the security aspects to it

and to capacity building the basic structure that is necessary for the delivery services and creating a sense of purpose and unity and having the dialogue. >> thank you senator. let me give you six pieces of the package that can be used to overcome these additions. first of all, the government would offer to be escalated use of the force of the armed separatist laid down their weapons and left the occupied buildings. second the idea is already talked about, pushing some of the authority out to the regions into the local level. third, the big news about the may 25 election is part of that crowd of illegitimacy over the acting government because we now have somebody that has a strong democratic mandate. the early elections in the parliament but also gave a nude in a québec legitimacy and that would be important. part number four would be an agreement commanagreement, and d about this and some validation, some affirmation of the officials in the russian

language is a very big issue in ukraine. >> the fifth element would be a strong anticorruption campaign. tens of thousands of people were on the streets and it was out of just being tiger of curbs and it permeates every level of the society and i think another part would be the foreign-policy approach. you have already had people say that they don't want to get too close to nato. he was ready for the membership action plan, which they were. it's going to come to the conclusion that nato is a very controversial topic with ukraine and maybe some way to say without saying that for but to say it would be useful and otherwise a very controversial topic. >> towards the association in ukraine for example there has been a political agreement, that economic patch supposed to be signed. is that provocative in eastern

ukraine. so not pushing nato you should go ahead and move forward with the assertion and even the european union. now the problem that they have ideally triggered a rush of activity from crimea going to eastern ukraine is that the russians do not want to see ukraine do that association agreement. because ukraine moving in that direction is -- mac that doesn't provokimac thatdoesn't provoke y be additionally provocative -- i only have 30 seconds and i want to ask a fast question. the concern i had earlier was the presence of the international parties of ukraine and what power they might have but have a strong anti-semitic tendency. i view that as a positive that they are candidates of the two international parties that got less than 2.2%. am i right to read that as a positive trend?

i abhor those views but if we try to bury them i would add one more thing to go to the list, and it is possible amnesty for those on eastern ukraine as a part of a bigger deal and i would caution against the early elections because there has to be enough political capacity to be able to run campaigns. we saw that again they were too early and they couldn't and. >> i would add one thing i think that the russian actions. the majority of the provinces in eastern end of the southern part of the country. the early part of it showed it for the unity as a result of those actions, so i think it has

had a huge impact. i would just also add on the national dialogue which is another to expand and deepen the national dialogue would be something the president could do as well. >> some of you i haven't seen for a while and i apologize for missing the oral testimony but a couple of issues, and i apologize if you have covered them. how do you beat leave russia and china deal on a natural gas effect and the ability for us to export lng in an effective way, and in what way -- part of it the attraction here is although it would take a while to get the infrastructure in place and for it to make a difference, the price signals would have been sent immediately. to what extent is that while the fight by this big russia and china deal? >> i said earlier i see it as a

sign of desperation. russia was beginning to believe and i still believe. they desperately wanted another market. i don't know what the terms are in that deal. many people speculate they are not very favorable to russia. and until we do that i' i am not sure that we can fully answer the question. but i think there's an enormous opportunitthere is an enormousoy industry to get its act together and work with the europeans and find new markets in the medium term including the export of the lng. i understand there are regional markets and we don't want to lose the enormous cost advantage that we have here in america. on the other hand we need to be a little more strategic and if there are international opportunities, not just to lng

that europe, we should be for those. >> with regards to the sanctions as you mentioned, russia has already tripped some of the measures that passed the threshold where we say that we would move forward with additional sanctions. the europeans are not following. what in your view will it take for russia and the europeans to come onboard? i don't think putin is going to do this and that is why he stood down some of his forces while he's now using the regular forces.

the long-term gas and oil and other energy decisions that we are discussing here have as you mentioned tremendous future implications and the movement of economic decisions around the integrated world and it is hurting russia. they are taking steps even if they are not bold or major and what we did against iran as early we do not use the tools after 9/11. well, we went into iraq and we aren't going to go into russia that way. but even these minor steps have very significant consequences and the other thing is they are hard for us and the europeans to do. putin doesn't think that we will do hard things. every time that we do a hard saying we are sending a signal to him who knows what we are going to do tomorrow if he keeps that up, and that is a good thing.

>> ambassador, when the delegation was there before the seizure of crimea the prime minister said with regards to the ukrainian military, we have nothing that shoots, runs or flies. they will develop some of that capacity over time. but what are the political implications. >> what are the military implications by the ukrainian government in the east. >> for stuff in the east we have been talking about throughout this hearing is the ukrainian government showing that it's able to govern and able to the liver and obviously a huge part of the government's purpose is to be able security along its

borders. so i think that is terrifically important. with military the it has been weakened. one of the things we heard while with the ukrainians as that look, we are worried that the russians know exactly what we are going to do before we do it. the west can help respond to the request and help them build the capacity on all levels to be able to secure the border borded also to deliver the basic services that link those communities and those areas to the essential government. right now with all of the

propaganda they are getting from moscow with those that are going back and forth and destabilizing wherever thewhatever they can ag the problems like tossing in the cocktails into the polling places. it is a basic capacity building so that there is some semblance of governing authority. if i could return to something that you said in your remarks which is the key, we have a tendency of the west to think that the signals into symbols are only the long-term. and i couldn't disagree more. i think that what you are talking about is so important because sending signals, western support, western dedication not just to ukraine but the entire region is a sensual because the communities that have historically weak links to the

central government that are being bombarded with all of these mixed signals i think it's important that 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. the next is having spent the next several months complications with our european allies fairly pessimistic that they are ready to take the next step. some of us attended with chancellor merkel which she can be described as stuck in her current position regarding the robust culture of sanctions.

some european nations aren't sitting still. they are actually moving the other way. senator johnson and i sent a letter to the french today asking them to hold the sale to the warships to the russians very type of the warships that were truly used in the invasion of crimea. assuming that the europeans are not willing to move with us on a next level of sanctions and to use the ambassadors in allergy to move from the kiddie sanctions to the secretary of sanctions, assuming that they are not ready, would you recommend that the united states precipitously moved forward unilaterally with the sectorial-based sections regardless whether the europeans are ready to join us and if you could give just quick answers and if you have a caveat that would be fine.

>> it's nice to see all of my colleagues on the committee. i don't think that unilateral sanctions work well. we have seen this movie in iran. if i put maximum pressure on europe and hope that angela merkel can be helpful to do this it is in their interest to do this, it will be cheaper in the long run to do this. but if europe won't go along and i can move to the larger individual sanctions because getting it tomorrow these folks does get at the energy sector in a lot of them are players in the sector in russia and it does hurt and i think the sanctions that have been imposed to date not fully effective have had a big bite on russia. >> i have one more after this. >> i think that we need to push and see if we can do the sanctions with europe, that if europe will not go along i would agree the individual sanctions i would also target families.

i just wonder if it would be in the financial just because so much of the international commerce is in dollars into this requires somebody smarter than me but looking at the sanctions with major bank like this pair bank could the united states do that is self and itself and i t would have a significant application on the ocean and economy, and i think that it would have some effect. we would have to character which mighwouldlike the against the u. economy. >> unilateral sanctions if we cannot get the concerted ones with the europeans that we do have to be careful they should be designed to persuade, not to provoke the europeans because maintaining the solidarity with these guys is still very important. >> i would agree with what you heard. not speaking for the iri but only for myself i think one of the least reported stories in the 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 the dialogue which means he obviously fears the effects of the sanctions. my own view is as you have heard here that ratcheting up individual sanctions and family sanctions are important signals, and i think that we should constantly be pushing our european allies and remind them of the lines that have already been crossed in the effort to try to get the broad sanctions. >> we don't take a position on the sanctions but i would just make the point that i think that the ukrainians and the international community see crimea as lost almost for the short term and i don't think that we could afford to see the de facto occupation in two out of the five provinces in eastern ukraine. and whatever can be done to hold

russia accountable for what's taking place i think will be very, very important. >> here is my second question and we only have time for one or two people to answer but it is a question about nato and the future of the article five protection i agree that europe will certainly react if there is a movement of the troops across the border. and the idea is that they are protected under the mutual defense covenant in nato but russia is protecting a new form of the warfare in which they do not launch trips across the border and which they very slowly but methodically contest the areas and gained control of the areas with a range of tactics from intimidation to bribery to provocations to the little green men with no russian uniforms and so this is a longer-term challenge for us. but is article five still a sufficient protection for the countries along the russian

border? >> yes it is, senator murphy as long as it is backed with a capability. that's why it's important that the u.s. puts the infantry along those borders, and i hope with this billion-dollar program that it will be heavier forces and reinforced with nato. to be sure that the men that were facilitated by the presence of the 40,000 traditional motorized rifle and tank regiments along the border, that's basically like rock paper scissors block to the ukrainians from taking the more effective action in the earlier days against crimea, said he has a very sophisticated step. the first capability that the eastern states of nato need is a stronger military with u.s. forces as we had in berlin and other places so they know it may only be a few americans today that there will be many more tomorrow. speck let me just ask you a slightly different version of

the question. let's say the tactics that are being used in eastern ukraine are being used in romania or bulgaria would say that russia was actively funding the separatist movements within those nations. my impression is that it does not trigger article five, but should we be having a discussion about whether that's her fiction is sufficient? primack i think we should have a discussion about how to meet or nato obligations. article five is central to that and i also think that the other members have to put more into the fight both in terms of resources and money. and the final sanctions by the russian official was off the wilson center. they all of their vacations. and that would really get their attention.

>> if i could add briefly. what happens if the 150 local protesters seize a television station in eastern estonia. what happens they answered already. the rule is if it doesn't happen it won't be useful for the four or five weeks. that's a in article five contingency. >> senator. >> thank you all very much for being here. and i would like to pursue that line of questioning a 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. and i just wonder if you all could talk a bit about the kind of things that we ought to be thinking about not just with respect to ukraine but with respect to some of the other countries in eastern europe that are potential targets for this kind of activity, and what kind

of response we ought to be thinking about. should we have a more assertive position either rhetorical 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 and also to our allies about our support for them. so i don't know if you would like to speak to the first. >> going back to 1997, nato has tried to be non- provocative in terms of its deployment in the territory of the countries that joined the 1999. so there has not been a permanent deployment in places like poland or romania or the baltic states. i think that we have seen in the last few months the russians fundamentally change the rules. and so now it is time to

consider something i think the pentagon uses in the term persistence but moving towards some kind of a permanent military presence in the baltic states and poland. i don't think that they have to be large units. i don't think they have to have significant offensive capability. they are basically there is a tripwire. that worked to keep berlin free for years. it does bother me a bit and i tried to talk to my european friends about this but when you look at the on the ground permit deployment now in the baltic states and poland, yo you have o want american airborne country with about 150 troops in the places. it should just be american. what i've been trying to lobby for its would be great if we had at the german company and the american company in lithuania and a british company in poland. i think that would be very good. one in terms of sending the signal to moscow but if the article five committee is shared by all of the nato allies and i think that it would also be good to signals on capitol hill where you ask the questions why is this just an american burden. >> i certainly agree with that,

and i wonder if any of you are willing to speculate 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 the dependence on energy or is there something else going on? >> first of all, there is the 1997 agreement, and if you look at the language of it it is clear as the ambassador said that the conditions under the foreseeable conditions, we will not be making large permanent deployment. while it is clear if the conditions haven't changed they will never change and second, we are not even talking about it as steve said. we are talking about a few companies falling in on what we would call the battalion packages. with the other companies on alert and ready to be flown in almost immediately on the equipment. that can rapidly happen. i saw that in 1898.

that can rapidly generate 5,000 troops. the berlin brigade was a tripwire that if you remember from the pictures of the checkpoint charlie in 62 it was a tripwire with the battle tanks. if you have a conventional military capability, again, you block the ability of putin to intimidate the reaction to the infiltration into the little green men, the little seizures of the things along the borders because the police problems without having to worry about the 10,000 russian troops coming across the border. >> i think that is worth exploring a little more but i want to change the subject and i'm sorry i had another hearing so i wasn't able to get here to hear your testimony. but i wanted to explore the economic situation in ukraine because i know that early in the crisis, one of the overwhelming views that we heard was that if

the ukrainian economy doesn't improve that, it creates a situation where the whole country could fall. and i wonder if you could -- again i don't know who wants to address this but if you could speak to where we are in terms of economic assistance for ukraine and to what extent do we think that having an impact. is there more that we should be doing and how. are we seeing any potential positive efforts to address correction in the way that we think will have long-term effects. i think that we have all sent ad more or less the same thing but

i think i'm the only mother and grandmother on this panel. and that is unacceptable and we've already seen that. so the government that starts on saturday has to move out smartly and he says that he will do that. that is .1. plaintiff number two, there will be austerity measures required to qualify for the loans substantial huge loans. other countries like egypt aren't prepared to do this. there's a huge political cost to this when you tell somebody that your gas bill is going to go up by a hundred% or more, etc., that is hard to hear. but this is the third chance for this government to say to folks who fought and died and you want

a different kind of government, this is what it will take. and after we do this for a short period committee aide will come and we will build a non- corrupt country with a sensible jobs program in your future will look brighter. >> writenow they have the financial institutions between 25 to $35 billion. so there is a good sum of money out there. a little bit of good news by understanding is when the imf went to ukraine in march to talk about the program, they said that for the first time in dealing with ukraine in 20 years they said here is over to do list. the ability to access will be tied to their continued implementation of reforms.

can they sustain the political support for the measures? its purpose the prior action acn that they raise the price. it's a good time to raise the price because nobody needs it, but when people see their bill is up 60 or 70%, that is when the government is going to have to come out and say we have to go ahead and get through the next couple of years because this is the key to unlocking the economic potential. >> i know that mr. green wanted to implement on that. >> they've been in poland and ukraine for a long time and we conducted the polls before the election and of course themselves, and i think the good news is the ukrainian people have their eyes open. they understand the path that they had is nothing to be an easy one. it shows that they are repaired for tough measures in typical steps. but it also shows it may be a short leash. so, my own judgment is as long

as the government sends the signal that it's moving to take on corruption that there is hope that they will take on these aggregating factors, then they have a mandate and the capacity to take the challenge is on. the people are well-educated into the ukrainian people know what they are up against. if you give a person a fish to feed him for a day that if you teach them how to fish and feed him for a lifetime. so, that is what we are talking about here.

ukraine not just germany, poland it backs out almost all of the natural gas that it imports. teach the country to fish. it has the natural gas resources. third in europe, teach the country to fish, to develop its own energy resources. that is what we should do. that would scare russia. that was petrified russia. that would be the ukrainian people banding together themselves to say we must do this. so, i introduced a bill this morning to deal with this heel in ukraine that doubles the funding for the state department and the usaid export import

bank, u.s. trade and development agency to deal with this issue, both energy efficiency and natural gas. it's all inside of their own country. to leverage the programs that are already there to bring in the expertise and to help them tell us a timeframe that it takes for them to do it. so that is, without a question, where we have to be. as a nation that is our opportunity. exporting lng from the country, keep their home for a day. we could do that but that isn't really where we should be. and parenthetically here for those who are criticizing president obama's plan on monday but was announced in the greenhouse gases and decry the electricity rates here in america for doing that they have the same republicans who were also supporting.

it comes from the president's announcement on what the epa is doing. it's not even close. >> but just to this subject which we should be able to work together on in a bipartisan basis but that is where we should be leveraging. you are an expert on this. can you talk a little bit about the energy efficiency in this whole area and how dramatic that you be leaving it can be as a difference given your own experiencexperiencewith your lin here in america? you do know that this issue holds. >> thank you, senator. it's kind of interesting seeing at the bottom of the queue of the committee.

i think that we did pretty well and mentioned light bulbs which were a bipartisan initiative in the past on a bipartisan basis. we did the building standards and fuel efficiency and a number of other things. i can't vote here anymore but i certainly support your initiative to help the countries of themselves. it's a point that we have made. they have to take these steps. this is a very good angle and finally i said something i'm not sure that you were here about using our asymmetric strength against russia for our asymmetric strengths are some of our good ideas.

it would go a lot further than the sum of the other ideas that are more kinetic. on the question of energy efficiency and natural gas, we have to help them with the reverse flow and other issues that the other issue do you all agree this is an area that we should euro in and of tha that l make a bigger difference than any change in the marketplace. they produced their own natural gas and i think that we actually do not direction in 2012 for the price that they paid for their heating and their gas was 16 of thonesixth of the price that uke paid to import that.

there are two major components along with others and i would include us exporting the lng and encouraging europe to get it from other sources as well. even if it does increase the electricity rates in the united states. >> reasons i go -- congressman? >> senator i will say that we defeat in a comprehensive approach, so it is almost all of the above in terms of building capacity in ukraine. the ukrainian government welcomes on energy diversification, a host of all the reform issues -- they have welcomed technical expertise and a major way as they go forward. >> yeah. i think that we really do have a huge opportunity here, and the more we learn about this country is the more we see that it can be transformed in the blink of an eye. they could increase their energy efficiency by 50% in five years.

bit of to use every leverage that we have in order to help them accomplish our goal. that is what is going to keep gazprom up at night with nightmares. that's why china looms large. they will see a market shrinking dramatically and their geopolitical leverage as well because that is what it is really all about. when you talk about syria or iraq or libya, unfortunately oil underlies a lot of each of those regions, and here, we really get a chance to do something for them that makes them self-sustaining. my hope is that we can talk about this issue on a bipartisan basis and the committee and get right at the heart of their weakness, get right at the heart of what this whole story is about, which is their necessity today of importing natural gas, but it is something we can really change dramatically and have the ukraine say to russia, "we don't need your natu