the lady behind him, and the other gentleman -- the gentleman with the glasses closest to the window first, the lady behind you, and then back to you. i was trying to keep the three of you together. >> i am a second year undergraduate at george washington university. my question today is in regards to nato's nuclear declaratory policy and the prospects for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons in nato's grander security policy. as obviously from the united states' perspective, as long as the u.s. tactical weapons remain deployed in europe, all of nato has a stake in their security. so how does the debate over nato nuclear policy and non-strategic nuclear weapons deployed both by nato and russia also fit in to september's agenda? >> thanks very much. if you'll just pass the microphone to the lady behind you. thank you. >> hi. rachel oswald, national journal. my question kind of follows that. there was a recent congressional report that found that the

pentagon's time schedule for achieving certain missile defense capabilities in romania and poland against medium missiles could be too optimistic. what are your thoughts on that conclusion? >> thanks. and the gentleman who originally had the microphone. >> as the united states and the european union are negotiating the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, the so-called economic nato, don't you think that it's essential that we have a transatlantic conversation when it comes to security, to a greater extent that the eu has delivered in december, and then secondly, with the departure of the last u.s. tank in april from europe and the end of the isef mission in afghanistan, don't you think that it's essential that nato re-examines its role in the 21st

century? don't you think that the alliance maybe needs to reinvent itself as it did after the end of the cold war? thank you very much. >> thank you. >> yep. interesting questions. first, on our nuclear policy. we adopted a new strategic concept in 2010 and also in that strategic concept addressed the nuclear question. we declared that we subscribe to the long-term vision of a world without nuclear weapons. actually, that's not breaking news, because most of the countries in the world subscribe to that vision already in 1970, when they signed the non-proliferation treaty.

so we all committed to that long-term vision of a world without nuclear weapons. we also declared that we will work hard to create the conditions for fulfilling that vision. but, having said that, we added that as long as nuclear weapons exist, nato will remain a nuclear alliance. now, we have also declared that we are ready to engage in negotiations on a reduction of the number of nuclear weapons. including tactical nuclear weapons. but we have added that it should take place in a balanced manner. and the fact is, that since the end of the cold war, nato countries have reduced the

arsenal of nuclear weapons drastically. i emphasize drastically. while we have not seen a similar reduction on the russian side. so there you see a huge stockpile of russian nuclear weapons and clearly an imbalance. so we shouldn't be naive. so while we will work towards a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons, we also need more transparency. and we need to reduce in a balanced manner. so that's our clear position. now, of course, i cannot exclude that the events we have witnessed in crimea will also have an impact on the thinking about arms control, including nuclear policies.

on missile defense. according to all information i have got, there won't be any change of the timetable as regards to the development of the nato missile defense system, including the establishment of facilities in romania and poland. and the timeline is that we intend to provide full coverage by 2018, and so far, i haven't seen any indications of changes in that plan. finally, on the transatlantic relationship, i agree that the transatlantic trade and investment partnership should actually be seen as what we

might call the economic nato. the interesting thing is that it has been foreseen already in the nato treaty article 2, that we should strengthen economic cooperation within or among allies. and actually, i see the t tip as an implementation of that article. now, following that, i also agree that we need more european contributions to our common security. but actually, i think the european council meeting in december was a remarkable step forward. among other things, because the european council focused on european investments and certain capabilities, among them drones,

joint intelligence surveillance reconnaissance, but in specific terms drones. also, air refueling, which was one of the lessons learned from our leap year operation. they also mentioned cyber and satellite communication. so for the fir tist time, the european council has committed to increasing european investments in much-needed military capabilities. i consider that a very welcome step forward. but having said that, let me reiterate what i said in my introduction today. the ukraine crisis and what we have seen in crimea has been a wake-up call, and it must be followed by increased european investments in defense, if we are to ensure a credible

deterrent and collect a defense in the future. and finally, on nato's role. well, daily i witness statements that reflect nato's success. every day right now during this crisis, i see expressions of gratitude among eastern allies. gratitude that they are actually members of our alliance. i don't think they see a strong need for redefining the role of nato. they became members of nato, to ensure effective defense and protection. they've got it. they're grateful for that. as we draw down our operation in

afghanistan, we open new opportunities to actually address emerging security challenges in a much more efficient manner, in modern abilities, enhanced cyber defense, development at nato missile defense. so no need to reinvent or redefine the role of nato. our core task remains the same, namely to provide effective defense of our populations and our territories, and actually the most effective defense is a strong and determined deterrent. that has been the essence of nato since it was established in 1949 and it will remain the core task. >> well, secretary-general, that seems a fitting end to the time,

which has unfortunately run out. we really appreciate you spending this past hour with us. we understand, of course, that we have to move off very quickly. so again, if everyone could stay in their seats until the secretary-general has left. thank you very much, sir, at this very difficult time for spending an hour with us. thank you for answering the questions. a round of applause for the secretary-general. thank you. [ applause ] consistent and robust response. >> i thank the prime minister for that answer, mr. speaker. i out the meetings that are coming up. the white house indicated their sanctions will be expanded. i'm sure the whole house will support the idea of list of ukrainian and russian officials about asset freezes and travel bans will be extended in the

e.u. council tomorrow. what are the circumstances which he will be supporting additional wider and economic trade sanctions on the russian federation? >> as we discussed previously in the house the european union set out some very clear triggers. we said if the russians did not take part in a contact group with the ukrainian government to take forward discussions, then asset freezes travel bans should follow. those should be put in place at foreign council and i previous further action should be taken at the european council of ministers which i will take part in on thursday. i also think we should be responding to the fact of this annexation. that we said that if there was further action to destablize the ukraine and this annexation is that action, further consequences need to follow. we need to set that out, on thursday, in concert with our european partners and at the same time i think we need to put down a very clear warning that if there was further destabilization for instance,

going into the eastern ukraine in any way, then we would move to a position of sorts of economic sanctions that we discussed in the house last week. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister knows from this side of the house we'll have our support for the toughest possible diplomatic and economic measures against the russian federation given the totally illegitimate actions they have taken. i also welcome to the announcement yesterday that the g7 allies will gather next week in the hague. mr. speaker, given russia's actions it remains inconceivable that they remain in the g8. should this go further and explicitly decide to suspend russia from the group of g eight economies? >> i was one of the first people to say that it was unthinkable for the g8 to go as planned. we were one of the first countries to sus spend all preparations for the g8. i strongly support the g7 meetings of countries on monday. i think it is important we move

together with our allies and partners. we should be discussing whether or not to expel russia permanently from the g8 if further >> in a few minutes, the un security council meets to discuss ukraine. after that, janet yellen's first news conference as head of the federal was a. -- reserve. >> on the next washington journal, a look at the role of nato. with mark jacobson. the chief washington correspondent for yahoo! news does -- joins us to discuss

--eign policy and how for and we will focus on janet yellen's plans for the federal reserve. washington journal of live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> this house voted against funding. we decided against contra funding because we decided it is against american tradition to fund a private army whose goal is to overthrow another government. it was against american tradition to sponsor killing of civilians. we felt it is against american tradition to abandon the strength of our ideas and replace them only with the strength of our arsenal.

we are facing another contra vote because daniel ortega went to moscow. nation happy about any turning to the soviets for economic help. that does not change the contract issue. issue.ra our president calls them freedom fighters. the vast majority never believed in freedom. to give so-called humanitarian aid to an inhuman army is a perversion. fourl give an example -- months pregnant was killed at a state owned coffee farm by the contras.

she was wounded first, her face shattered by a grenade. deep knife wound in her side with the fetus protruding. ugly, yes. we must face this. sure there is violence on the left, too. watch state is decreasing. the violence on both sides must stop. the way to stop it is not by supporting a private army who wants to overthrow a government of the country the size of iowa. by doing what america does vest -- best. peacefulng a settlement. the violence is to support the amendments. ourus not have the blood of

dust the innocent on our hands and escalate the involvement of american troops to central america. i say vote against the amendment. created by the cable companies and brought to you today as a public service. >> the un security council voted discuss ukraine. this portion of the meeting is one hour.

the agenda is adopted. 37 onordance with rule the provisional rules of procedure, i won invite the representatives of the ukraine to participate. it is so decided. 39, iordance with rule invite the secretary-general for human rights to participate. it is so decided.

the security council will now begin its consideration of item two of the agenda. deputyto welcome the secretary general. i give him the floor. >> madame president, members of the security council. my statement today will briefly focus on the continuing efforts of the u.n. with regard to the crisis in the ukraine. as well as the latest developments of the briefing of the council by the undersecretary on march 13. the secretary-general is on his -- to moscow and to key of as part of his effort. discussions --

lyrical solutions. he has spoken with the ukrainian prime minister. since the briefing to the council, the secretary-general has continued to engage with key actors with the aim of the escalating the situation. escalating -- de-escalating the situation. during my recent mission to ukraine, i stated the importance of inclusive government and the need to preserve a multiethnic ukraine. from his public statements, the secretary-general has received

this repeatedly counseled against actions that can lead to unintended consequences. my mission to ukraine was followed by that of assistant secretary general human -- to human rights. given the volatility of the situation, he extended his mission to ukraine. rightsmeantime, a human mission is being deployed. objectiveo have an assessment of what is happening on the reason -- ground. he will brief me on what is happening in ukraine and the monetary mission. -- monitoring mission. we have coordinated our efforts with the organization to provide monitors to ukraine.

madam president, i wish to recall that during my mission to ukraine, i brief the council on kiev.4 from i reported a country grappling with security and economic challenges. the crisis appears only to have deepened since then. ,nstead of de-escalation tensions continue to rise. the crimean authorities decided to hold a referendum on the 16th of march. voted did so in favor of crime area -- crimea s secession.a' subsequently, crimea declared

independence which was recognized by the russian federation. on the 17th of march, the european union and the u.s. applied sanctions against russian and crimean officials. president8, mark -- went ahead with a treaty to make crimea a part of the russian federation. the government in ukraine has vowed to never accept crimea's independents, stating crimea is an an integral part of ukraine. this followed reports that ukrainian officer was killed. following this incident, the deputy prime minister and defense minister travel to put

-- plan to travel to crimea today. this underscores the dire need immediate opening of direct dialogue between moscow and kiev. tworts are emerging that naval bases have been taken over by pro-russian forces or unidentified groups. initial reports suggest oft the caesars -- seizes the bases have come without bloodshed, such developments carry risks. the secretary general has underlined the importance of avoiding provocative action and refrain from incitement. these events have heightened tensions and add new layer of complexity to a precarious situation. a are now faced with risks of

dangerous further escalation that could have ramifications for security. madam president, in a wider perspective, we should recall that the russian federation and ukraine remain neighbors. political ties. it is our view that it is in the thatests of all of us these nations have positive ties with each other and the region. the first up in that direction to be replaced with de-escalation and restraint in the present crisis. close by quoting some of the secretary general's key messages. i quote, we are at a crossroads. hardentions continue to and rhetoric sharpens, there is a risk of a dangerous downward

spiral. the focus must be to engage in direct dialogue between moscow and kiev. aimed at specific measures that will pave the way to a diplomatic solution agreed although it has proved elusive, the path to a peaceful resolution is still open. that he nows spirit embarks on his mouse -- mission to moscow and kiev. the u.n. will continue to play its role promoting dialogue for a peaceful and joint resolution of this crisis. it has now become more serious than ever. thank you. i want to thank him for his statement. i will now give the floor.

>> madam president, distinguished members of the council. thank you for this opportunity to brief you on my mission to ukraine. -- joinedd secretary -- secretaryry general. my intention was to make an assessment of the human rights sick -- situation. work towards the de-escalation of tensions. make recommendations on the way forward. i met with individuals from across the cultural, ethnic, linguistic spectrum. including officials. civil society organizations representing various communities. victims of human rights violations. members of regional organizations and diplomatic communities.

my team has collected numerous written materials. i was not able to go to crimea as the authorities there initially would not receive the mission. on sunday, i received an invitation to visit. crimea,hat a visit to possibly by the head of the u.n. human rights monitoring situation -- commission, will soon take place. byelcome the request made the independent expert on minority issues to visit ukraine and hope that the mission will take place as soon as possible. contribute to decreasing tensions. let me say something on chronicle violations. chronic human rights violations

were a reason for the people in ukraine in recent months. there have been concerns about weak rule of law. lack of accountability. resulting impunity. the right to a fair trial. cases of torture and ill-treatment. all matters of long-standing concern. the lack of independence of the judiciary must be remedied. reform of the security sector and the prosecutors's office are urgent tasks. corruption is a problem that affects rule of law. this also needs to be addressed swiftly. reforms and policy measures must be adopted without a spirit of revenge. they must be transparent and inclusive. it is crucial to ensure that one does not respond to human rights

violations with other human rights violations. in the context of ongoing legislative measures, these must fully respect human rights and rule of law. to protestmove related violations. now move to protest related violations. i am deeply concerned about human rights violations including excessive use of force and extrajudicial killings, torture, disappearances, and arbitrary arrests and detentions. of actions of snipers are particular concern and needs to be fully investigated. more than hundred people, mostly protesters, but also members of security forces have also lost their lives and many more were injured. i visited protest-related big ends in hospital and i also spoke with physicians in

makeshift hospitals, including the current minister of health. them confirm that sniper killings of protesters were execution-style aiming for heads and chests. the perpetrators of these and other human rights violations against all victims must we probably -- be probably brought independentollowing , impartial and thorough investigations. let me turn now to ongoing violations and the way to address them. toave urged all authorities ensure inclusive committee in ensuringe and, while freedom of expression, to curb hate speech. ukraine is a multicultural and a multilingual stick country.

all views should be expressed fear -- it's press freely in a democracy as long as expression does not incite hatred and violence against others. any attempt of escalation of violence and hatred should be prevented or stopped when it has occurred before it escalates into further violence. ours incumbent on authorities to ensure equal protection for all, especially of minority groups. the hasty repeal of the law on languages by parliament was a mistake. the decision of parliament was not approved by the acting willdent so the old law continue to be enforced while the new text is prepared. this process should be done in full concentration with all concerned and the fully anticipatory, transparent, and inclusive.

with amy visit, i met wide range of representatives of civil society, including representatives of ethnic russians. there seem to be some cases where members of the russian minority have been harassed or even attacked, such as in the case of the attack against a member of parliament. all allegations of human rights violations in particular against minorities have to be thoroughly investigated. that these seems violations are neither widespread nor systematic. have serious concerns about the situation in crime area -- in crimea where the situation remains tense with respect to protection of human rights. i have met with victims of arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and ill-treatment and other human rights violations. i spoke with representatives of this place in laviv.

i am deeply concerned about the were rights of those who in recent political events in crimea. it has been recently reported on thirdimean activist march was found dead on 16 march in a forest. reports from credible sources, his body bore marks that suggest he had been subject to mistreatment. in addition to cases of violence between various clinical ukrainian and russian grips with the alleged participation of groups from outside of the region resulting in recent deaths and injuries, the spreading of rumors, including through the media, part ticket really in eastern ukraine, is

adding to an increased anxiety among the population. i understand that this is partly due to rumors apperception about authorities would insure policies and inclusive government and protect and support the use of russian language. fore is an urgent need independent monitors to objectively assess and report on human rights violations as well as on the implications of recent events and to monitor the current human rights situation throughout the country. independent, objective establishment of facts and circumstances surrounding alleged human rights violations it --lp investigation, can prevent further occurrence, and counter the spread of false information. fromve received a request the acting minister of foreign affairs of ukraine to dispatch human rights monitors and we had

immediately begun their deployment the team will become foes of nine international and some 25 national staff. the had -- the head of human rights international mission arrived ahead. others will be surely joining him. mission,llout of this we will work very closely with the iecoec. both the deputy secretary general and i have had contact with leadership in this regard and this will be replicated on the ground. distinguishedt, members of the security council, the united nations stand ready to help ensure human rights are respected and protected in ukraine with the support of international and regional organizations.

to monitoring the human rights situation, the united nations can assist by providing technical assistance for all legislative and other reforms necessary to ensure that recommendations received by ukraine by the united nations human rights mechanisms are fully implemented so that they can effectively contribute to both peace and development efforts. thank you. >> i would like to thank him for his statement. and now i will give the floor to the representative of ukraine. president, distinguished members of the ladies anduncil, gentlemen, thank you very much for convening this meeting. thank you for inviting me. withld like to start expressing my gratitude to all

of you will address my mission today with words of condolences to the family of the ukrainian soldier who was killed yesterday after being shot in his neck when a group of gunmen stormed the ukrainian military base. , foreign ministers protested against the provocative actions of the russian armed forces which caused the death of the ukrainian soldier. the changes inve the situation in crimea. unfortunately, these changes are not for good. the illegitimate referendum on the issue of annexation of the by thery of crimea russian federation was conducted in an expedited manner on march referendum,fter the on march 18, the president of

the russian federation signed the agreement which is supposed to be ratified by the parliament of the russian federation on march 25. of these asked to be illegitimate and we call upon the entire civilized world not to recognize the illegitimately declared in the tenets of crimea. i would like to thank the deputy secretary-general, the assistant secretary-general for their important a thing about the situation with the human rights in ukraine. i would like to state only that the situation of human rights is crimeanlace in the peninsula which is under the total control of the legitimate authorities of crimea.

first of all, there are serious the alleged about preview of the population of ukraine. have occupiedes crimea. some ballots were distributed to those who are not registered, including nationals of other countries. able tocitizens were get a ballot for the referendum and in fact vote. those who did not come to polling stations were visited and escorted by police and forcing people to vote. journalists were banned despite having legitimate credentials.

ballots were issued immediately after submitting replication for inclusion for supplementary lease without awarded the commission members in place. given the result of the illegal referendum because of the decision made by the boycott -- in,oycott by the crimea about 3000 people, ethnic ukrainians, and national minorities of the crimea. i did not take part in that referendum. a referendum ballot provided to questions as options. neither of which provide for maintaining the dozen state of -- the autonomous state of crimea but to annexed to russia.

madam president, once again, i -- on the to illegality of the referendum self-proclaimed authorities in crimea held a referendum. the united nations charter, the council of [indiscernible] andell as other documents the so-called agreement establishing the commonwealth of independent states.

they failed to meet the democratic standards of referendum developed. the declaration of independence by the crimean republic is a direct consequence of the application of the use of force and threats against ukraine by the russian federation. and in view of russian nuclear power status, particularly dangerous to the ukrainian independence and integrity. basis of customary norms and international law, the international community is obliged not to recognize crimea or any situation or treaty or agreement that may arise however achieved by this territory. madam president, my council expresses a strong imperative protest against the recognition of the russian federation for the self-proclaimed republic.

russiansions of the does not meet the international of the russian multilateral and bilateral agreements for territorial integrity of ukraine and noninterference in the internal affairs of other countries. the independence of this formation was declared by a legitimate authority based on the results of the anti-constitutional referendum held in violation of the democratic standards. russia's recognition of the self proclaimed independence of crimea has one single role. its incorporation into the russian federation. we are seriously concerned about security of the ethnic ukrainians, crimea in ties, and

other ethnic groups living in crimea who have not supported the so-called referendum. there is a serious threat to their lives. end ofresident, at the my statement, i would like to echo my distinctives -- my distinguished colleagues. the world will never recognize independence of crimea and it's annexation to the russian federation. i thank you. >> i thank the representative of ukraine for that statement. and now give the floor to the members of the security council. i give the fertility ipresentative of france -- give the floor to the representative of france. thank themlike to for their statements and the representative of ukraine for his. international community

through this council sent a unanimous message to russia. the referendum that it has instigated in crimea is illegal and is no and void in the eyes of international law. the illegality of the splitting of crimea is just the more blatant. yesterday, crimea was annexed by russia. regarding how this is all fated to be. typhoon of aggressive nationalism, which no one here knows how far it will go, once it has been awoken, this nationalism which never leads to anything good, this nationalism which is so often used as a mask or to justify the undermining of individual items.

no one has made a great deal of effort to mask this. russian soldiers everywhere. nothing was left to chance. the media was controlled. international observers who work recruited amongst the far right -- and if there are fascists in the story, they are not wear when claims and to be. and finally, figures that were so excessive that they are simply meaningless. 97% of people have voted or 87% of people have voted when crimean qatar communities representing 40% of the population have called for a boycott. the numbers were created to ensure that we do not witness such spectacles. law must commit relations between states. the acquisition of territory by

use of force or by threats is something we cannot recognize. this is the dna of our organization. by votingon saturday against the drafted resolution, it is the charter of the united nations which russia has vetoed. we just heard from mr. sim on a bench that nothing in you craig thatom mr. simonovic nothing in crimea -- if it was undermining crimea it was during the time of yanukovych. workingies in kiev are to hold out their hand to the various components of ukrainian society. speakingow justifies of a responsible government whose actions could lead to fear, causing fear in the

minority population. the position of russian language in ukraine, something that is often [indiscernible] in moscow, used to intensify situation, no legal justification on the part of the foritory and even less so use as a pretext to extend its own borders. thatf horse always recall minorities in ukraine involved religious and language minorities who must be protected . kiev and others is not something which the council should be [indiscernible] human rights are being undermined. ukrainian soldiers are being killed simply because they refused to surrender. madam president, faced with a russia [indiscernible]

vis-à-vis the concerns of the international community has not responded to solutions in good faith. if only to make russia understand that we will never accept their wishes and prayers on the ground. two-pronged call to the russian federation. provocateurs are already active in eastern ukraine. let russia put an end to this transparent work. it has already managed to eliminate all european. countries. to go father would be very, very bad. the call is for moscow to open direct communications with kiev. russia should be clear about this. thene here will define future of ukraine except for ukraine itself. , we alreadyent

noted the first death in this reckless scandal. the ukrainian prime minister said yesterday that the political face of the ukraine crisis has turned into a military one. it will sooner or letter -- or later run out of control and later restrained the actions of ukrainians. thank you. >> thank you to the representative from france for the statement. i give the book to the representative of nigeria. >> thank you, madam president. from the outset, we would like to [indiscernible]

the crisis in ukraine is still open, not closed. we all know the parties involved and concerned. so take advantage of that this is the eighth time in three weeks at the security council is meeting on the situation in ukraine. this underscores the seriousness under which the council views the matter and its commitment to the matter and to international peace and security. nigeria has highlighted and stressed the need for dialogue officially between the parties actually concerned and for mediation by the international community to ensure the situation in ukraine is resolved peacefully we reaffirm our earlier warning that there are so many challenges to peace and security. to contemplate adding another and thatexisting lines all peaceful means, including

mediation, arbitration and .ialogue must be explored further escalation of the situation by heightened rhetoric can only lead to grave consequences am including military confrontation. especially when nuclear arms are involved.

regarding the situation in the ukraine, we welcome the appointment of a u.n. monetary team throughout the country to establish the truth for violations. nigeria once again urges all to arrange dialogue and negotiation and to free the peaceful resolution. calling all concerned to respect the sovereignty and independence of the ukraine in line with the charter. i thank you. >> i thank the representative of nigeria for that statement i give the floor to the russian federation. >> thank you so much. yesterday, it something truly historic took place. something our peoples have awaited for six decades now. in compliance with international law and democratic the seizures. with outside interference and through a free referendum, people of crimea have fulfilled in the u.n. charter with

documents, mainly the right to self-determination. also turning to russia. they agreed to the crimean people's request. the relevant treaty has been signed. the results are quite clear. more than 82% of voters participated in the voting and more than 96 of them chose in favor of russia. this figure of -- is expression of the free will of the people of crimea. for a minute, i will move from my text. i was stunned they tried to discredit the referendum by using the arguments. back home with the police and

tell. ukrainian presidents know this is an old and tested tradition in the -- in the elections if someone cannot come to the booth, then the members of the commission come to visit him at home to afford an opportunity to vote. i will not dwell on the history of the issue in any great detail. yesterday, couldn't stop it out yesterday. i will focus on a few aspects only. today, 2.2 million inhabitants, 1.5 million of russians, 350,000 ukrainians, but most of whom -- close to 2000, to the -- 290

crimean's. regardless of what someone anywhere might call for in preparation. a histric injustice has been righted. the leader who come with a stroke of a pen, and violation of the nontransferable to the ukrainian soviet socialist republic, part of the state then, he did this without informing the population and without their consent. not of us cared about the concerns of crimean's. citizens and many community activist repeatedly raised the issue, stating crimea are -- is intrinsically russian land. it is only now the will and the free expressed choice of crimean people has been filled.

we have taken note of a number of western partners who cannot rid themselves of imperial colonial habit are attempting to propose their risks on other countries. as geopolitical and reckless gambling of ukraine has led to such results that the people of crimea have spoken and have made their choice, as have the people of russia. a choice must be accepted and respected. turning now to the alarming situation in ukraine and international positions afforded to it to overcome its crisis. the pseudo-friends of ukraine needs to understand the cause of the crisis not -- lies not with russia. individual ukrainian political forces and foreign -- the attempt to drive ukraine to make

artificial choice to train the eu and russia to a large extent promoted the deep-seated and political crisis leading to the constitutional changes. it was seem western capitals continue to feel no shame in this. hacking people not ready to listen or exceed the views of ukrainian people and work only dominated by radical and nationalist organizations and the racist, anti-semitic, and -- according to the parliament, freedom party. it is with them the eu is planning to in the near future find a political component and association. in this respect, we are puzzled by the one-sided assessment of the situation in the field of human rights in the ukraine. we are especially powerful -- puzzled that not a word was set up the evidence that it was

filed both on the order and on the opposition forces to pay a pass for the use of force for the authority and power. one cannot simply claim there has been no kidnapping of individuals, that there has been no attacks on journalists and human rights defenders, and people have been locked up for political reasons. one cannot claim the national radicals are not determined in destroying historical fights. but there are no incidents which free up and see russian undercurrent -- anti-russian undercurrent. according to journalists, extremists have been a -- receiving awards.

foreign correspondents have been prevented from visiting, and that they are even trying to scramble the retransmission of satellite-tv. two dozen members of parliament pushed their way and in front of cameras eat up and took away the director general of the national television station of ukraine. first national tv station. who is an authority? disqualification of the not see associates. and the violence against ukrainians and russians overall. all of this there is the stripes -- instead of this, there is talks regarding the concerns in crimea.

together, as a result of the efforts of the people and the self-defense forces, the crimean authorities have guaranteed all the rights without exception. we would like to especially draw your attention to the fact that in -- in accordance with the treaty in the republic of crimea regarding to the russian federation in the republic of crimea, there will be three equal state languages. ukrainian, russian, and crimean's with the support of the whole of the russian people, will do everything in their power to preserve peace and tranquility. no provocations will hold them in doing this, similar to what happened a few days ago where, with fire from an unfinished building across the ukrainian

military basis, two were killed, and unarmed self-defense soldier and a ukrainian soldier. the attack was referred to by russian forces, referred to today, simply did not take ways. -- didn't take place. this is a planned provocation. they immediately seize upon this by calling on the ukrainian military forces present in the ukraine to use weapons against fellow countrymen. russian stands ready with a general interest on the basis of the broad, you turn -- internal come ukrainian dialogue in all particular reasons -- regions, the mechanism for settlement of the ukrainian council, they could be promoted by our proposal of the setting up of a group for ukraine.

we await a response. we continue to aim to discuss proposals and on for filling agreement on september 21 area watching comprehensive reform in the ukraine, and putting an end to the provocations of radical forces against the russian language population, and our fellow countrymen in the southeast and other parts of the ukraine. to this end, one can use the observers of the council of europe, as long as they implement a partial mandate and we have the necessary -- necessary modalities. thank you, madam president. >> i think the representative of the russian federation for that statement and now give the floor to the representative of the united states.

>> thank you, madam president, and thank you secretary-general for your briefing. we -- the representative of the russian federation began his intervention extolling the so-called referendum as embodying democratic procedures and having been conducted without outside interference. russia is known for its literary greatness. what you just heard from the russian ambassador showed or imagination. -- more imagination. russia decided to rewrite its orders but it cannot rewrite the facts. the united states rejects russia's military intervention and landgrab in crimea. these actions, again, violate the territorial integrity of ukraine, international law, the expressed will of most members of the council, and the letter and spirit of united nations charter.

two days ago, president obama and other world leaders put in place sanctions in response to russia's late in disregard for global opinion and the legal rights of ukraine. we are prepared to take additional steps of russian aggression or russian provocations continue. in this chamber, when the crisis began, the russian federation described his intervention into crimea as a human rights protection mission. they claim the recent change of government in the ukraine constituted such a danger to ethnic russians in crimea that military action was justified. secretary general simonovic's briefing once again illustrates this crisis was never about protecting the rights of ethnic russians and was always about

one country's ambition to redraw borders. if there was ever a time to be concerned about human rights in crimea, it is now. credit bull reports indicate cases of harassment have been directed by russian allies against ethnic ukrainians. the tartar community, which constitutes 12% of the population, is rightly fearful of again falling victim to deportation or dissemination. the crimean first deputy prime minister has recently announced crimean top cars will be evicted from some of their land, which he claimed is needed for infrastructure projects. the body of a crimean top tire was discovered sunday. he had last been seen at a protest on march 3. his body reportedly shows signs of torture. russian troops are reportedly storming apartment buildings, housing ukrainian troops, border guards, veterans, and their families, threatening them and demanding their immediate partner -- departure. we are seriously concerned about

civil society leaders come media restrictions, and journalists in crimea. the united states reports -- supports the rapid -- we believe it is instructive the government of ukraine has repeatedly welcomed their deployment and the russian federation has not. today in vienna, again, russia was the lone country to block a monitoring mission. there, russia was dramatically outnumbered here it was the lone dissenting voice out of 57 countries. 56, it seems, had a different view. russian officials say they understand the urgency, but they vote with their feet. relying on their military forces and refusing to allow the deployment of those who could help defuse the crisis and prevent further violence. after hearing my russian

colleagues assault on the assistant secretary-general's report minutes ago, i see the logic of russian obstruction. objective information is inconvenient to the russian tale. we call on all parties to report these missions, including their access to crimea. we want to thank members of the council for taking a strong stance on russia and making clear that russia stands alone in its failed, illogical, it and mendacious attempt to justify actions that cannot be justified. when this counsel accurately described the crimean separatist referendum as invalid, only a single hand rose in opposition. when this counsel declare the referendum cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of crimea, only a single hand rose in opposition. the referendum has now taken place. but the national and international legal status of crimea has not changed. a thief can steal property but that does not confer the right of ownership on the.

-- on the thief. in closing, madam president, let me emphasize again that what russia has done is wrong as a matter of law, cannottter of law and it be rendered valid good we must stand together denying recognition. in doing so, we must also be very clear that what happened in crimea cannot be repeated in other parts of ukraine. thank you. >> tonight on c-span, bill gates talks about poverty, global health issues and the u.s. education system. theng a recent interview at american enterprise institute, he said, in the next 20 years, because prosperity is pretty around the world, there should the fewer than 10 countries in poverty.

this is a little what he said. >> you offer an incredibly bold prediction. you say that there will be almost no poor countries remaining in the year 2035. what do you mean by that? >> the primary measure which has all sorts of challenges is gdp per person. but we don't have a substitute measure. if you take that the world bank withies world countries moving up into a middle income bracket and moving from low income to middle income. and we have today 45 countries that are still in that low income category. what i am saying is that, by 2035, there should be less than 10 and they will mostly be in places like north korea where you have a political system that they simply create poverty for

wherelandlocked countries the geography, the disease burden, the desperate ethnicities have not been able to bring together a government in terms of infrastructure that does even the most minimal things for them. in this rising tide that is not recognized, it is overwhelming how prosperity is spread around 1960 whereafe from there were very few rich countries and a gigantic number of poor countries. now most countries are middle income countries and poor countries are much smaller. just saying that they will move up that threshold doesn't mean they won't have poor people within their countries. it doesn't say their countries will be fantastic. but it will be a lot better on

average than it is today. >> c-span, for 35 years, bringing public affairs from washington directly to you, putting you in the room for congressional hearings, white house event, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a privateervice of industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite service provider. watch us on tv, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> in a few moments, more about ukraine in a csi is form that includes former national security advisers. in a little more than an hour, the chairman janet yellen's first news conference as head of the federal reserve. after that, the comments of the head of nato on russian intervention in ukraine and later we will re-air the human

secure -- the un security council meeting on ukraine. several it is to tell you about tomorrow here on c-span, including a speech by lieutenant governor of wisconsin. she is focusing on her state's economy and jobs. at 2:40 pm, president obama talks about women in the economy in florida. we will also be live 4:00 p.m. eastern at the wilson center for discussion with a former u.s. ambassador to syria robert ford. . problem inth care the united states is going to continue and it will not go anywhere in the sense that if we do not deal with the issue of innovation, if we do not translate all those findings that occur in the pharmaceutical industry at the universally -- at the university level that treat disease and cure them and as long as we do not understand

disease, their causes and how to treat or cure them, there is no point really and talking about the solution of the health care problem. because health insurance coverage will provide health insurance. but when it comes to drugs, when it comes to premiums, when it comes to subsidies, where are these subsidies going to come from? from taxpayer money. so it is not just the people will get dollars out of the trees. people have to pay for that and there is a limit. the economy is basically the science of limitations. so if we don't to deal with a better system of working on prevention, of working on understanding, on how we can take care of our own health, then there is no point in just having health insurance. what will happen is what happens in colombia right now. people are covered. like what people have in panama. everyone has access to health care. like what happens in europe, too, people are covered, but

when it comes to medications and access to drugs, then governments are having nobleness affording them -- having problems affording them. >> the future of health care "qday night on c-span costs &a." >> next, a discussion on russian intervention in ukraine held by the center for strategic and international studies. this is an hour. >> thank you all for coming. just to get it going, we are going to talk about russia obviously with two men i am proud to say are not just long-time friends but at various times over the 45 years that i have been in washington they have been very good sources [indiscernible] [laughter] sometimes on the record, sometimes maybe not. generals spokend

off, someone that i admire greatly. this audience is certainly going to need no introduction to any of them, but in case there is someone here from mars, let me say dr. brezinski is a former u.s. national security advisor to president jimmy carter, counselor and trustee with s, served at the state department and many other prestigious foreign policy divisions. also generalv security provider -- security advisor. he is also a counselor here at csis. fordeputy assistant national security affairs during the ford administration's. and holds the medal of freedom

in 1993. queen elizabeth made him an the knight ofr of the british empire. and was editor for the times and now writes a column for the times. he is the author of several books on foreign policy and also biography of general norman sports copy -- norman schwarzkopf. it is hard to know where to start this discussion. let me start with this question. is this the new cold war? let's start with you, dr. brezinski. >> obviously, we don't know for sure but it is beginning to look that way. it may not end up that way but it is beginning to look that way. in fact, if i can take two minutes, i would like to do something that probably most of the people here haven't done. namely, cite some experts from putin's speech because it is

worth reading the speech unfolds. and where it is worry some is what he says about ukraine more generally. in that speech, he says among other things, that ukraine -- let me get my clippings here. benefitedat ukraine from the bolshevik revolution by obtaining large sections of the historical south of russia. posits of thet theme that ukraine's territory is not valid. whenhe goes on to say that president of ukraine asked that something be limited, russia agreed as a favor on the assumption that ukraine would be our good neighbor. however, this is not how the situation developed. he also goes on to say in the same speech it is also obvious

that there is no legitimate executive authority in ukraine now. nobody. that is a rather strange to be saying -- strange thing to be saying about a neighboring country. he assured in the speech that russian armed forces never entered crimea. which is kind of curious because we have the impression that somebody did. then he goes onto say that we understand that our western not to be guided by international law in the practical policies but by the rule of the gun. and we understand that what is happening is that these actions are aimed against ukraine and russia and against eurasian integration. and he also adds -- let me conclude that we have already heard declarations from kiev about ukraine soon joining nato. let me say that it pains our hearts what is happening in ukraine at the moment.

see people suffering and they are uncertain about how to get through the day. our concerns are understandable because we are not simply close neighbors. but, as i have said many times, we are one people. now what is that telling you? if thingss that, don't get under control fairly soon, we may be seeing the next phase, which is an attempt in a sense to create a one state for one people. >> in other words, he would absorb dust >> i think this is a speech that deals allegedly with crimea. but later -- that lays down the claim that can be asserted if things unfold in a way that provides opportunities. that portends particularly to the territorial edges of you creating -- of ukraine. back to the top question, is

this the beginning of a resumption of the cold war? and did you have the same interpretation of clinton's speech as dr. burzynski did? >> mine is not an interpretation. i read excerpts. [laughter] this is not a return to the cold war. i think it is of a different character. we have had a scratchy relationship with russia since the cold war ended. and i think it will continue. but the cold war i think was pretty generous. -- and itn old evolved philosophies about the world and struggle for men's minds. this is not the kind of thing. this is much more practical.

i think what has been read was very interesting because, if there is anything that makes confused reading, it is the history of ukraine and russia. the first state of russia called bruce -- called russ had its capital in kiev in the 10th century and they were driven up into the forest by the mongrels of asia who did not like treaties and went after them. since then the mother has been a different relationship with then any other part of russia or the soviet union. so i would say this is new. i think some of the things that

our -- i learned a lot about putin in- what he said in the last few days. person, a different very different person from gorbachev or from khrushchev. outlook ofthe someone who was kgb and who saw the soviet union collapsed. venoma person full of because he thought that that oflapse was taken advantage by the west, especially by the united states.

to humiliate russia. of course, to take advantage of russia. he said, when we were flat on our backs at the end of the cold war, you walk all over us because you could. you'd announced the abm treaty. of nato the borders right up and into the former soviet union because you could. and youre strong again can't push us around anymore. so that goes through it all. but i think that to say that can is a new cold war -- we label it one, but i don't think it is going in that direction. >> roger? >> i agree with general scowcroft, but you don't have the ideological conflict you had a during the cold war. think weher hand, i should have taken president clinton a lot more seriously

when he described the breakup -- putin more seriously when he described the breakup of the soviet union. nowink what we are seeing is president putin is absolutely serious about re-creating. looking atspace -- the situation in crimea, i think we can view the events in as a kind of08 precursor, a trial run, if you like. let's see if the west reacts. in that case, he did not annex. and we have to -- we went to reset and then there was a number of years when it looks like we might be able to treat russia as a normal country.

and there has been this norm -- this idea, this dream of a spacean space, a eurasian where we could build free and liberal societies. but this man, this president putin, he does not want that. he is bent on something else. he is bent on using an alternative civilization to the west. and i think we have a highly combustible situation. be justthat this could a test moving ukraine. but much more dangerous is the fact that there are russian speakers in plenty of other states surrounding russia, notably estonia and latvia. stirything begins to there, we are into territory where article five applies an attack on any -- we are

.efinitely into new territory in moscow right now, we have an adversary. we do not have a potential partner. >> what can we or should we do now? >> i think we have to be concerned what follows what has happened >> and president putin has put out but then. might it disintegrate? my parts of ukraine secede? and then what happens? suppose violence breaks out? what options do we have? we try to anticipate the possibility and try to consider it seriously? one way to anticipate it is to

still try somehow convey to putin that it is not our intent to seduce ukraine, to drive into nato, to turn it into a state that is openly, overtly hostile to russia. and to work together in consolidating the recovery a ukraine economically and otherwise because russia also has an interest in that and so do we. and say to them we will do it jointly. and of course, ukraine has a right to be european in spirit. but it is not going to be a member of the eu for years and years. and we can reassure you that it will not be a member of nato. but at the same time, we have to convey to the russians our concern that those words spoken ukraine areut terribly reminiscent of what hitler was saying about austria which was then

either we are past it in the face of a calamitous explosion or maybe the ukraine will fall apart and there would be a repetition of what happened in crimea. so we also have to talk to the ukrainians about their response. and what steps they are taking to make sure that the state remains viable. and be willing to assist them if they're determined. so in a sense, an accommodation if possible, determines the conflict if necessary. but i would not treat this lightly. i think there is a spirit in putin's speech which is vengeful and trimefulist at the same time and committed, mr. putin just said, to this notion of the new union which actually is just a new name for a very old entity. an empire with a capital in moscow. and that's unreal in terms of the modern age.

nazarbayev, now president of kazakhstan, is issuing warnings about the possibility of a threat to the independence of states in the region. and so are some of the others. from uzbekistan, and so forth. i think these are possible, very serious dangers to stability in europe, with consequences which could be either very defeatist or explosive. i can't predict that. but certainly collectively dangerous. >> dr. scowcroft, do you think the sanctions that the united states amounts, have they had any impact? >> i think we've done about the minimum we needed to do. and i think we see what happens now. has ee with much of what

just been said. i misjudged putin. as i say he was -- with the united states and the cold war but he's not a dumb man. he's a smart man. and i thought that after he had ruled for a while and after medvedev had his turn at the president that putin would see medvedev got a lot farther with sugar than he was getting with vinegar. and that he would change. he hasn't. and i think that tells you more about him. and we need to worry about it. also, this thing about the soviet union and how -- it's important to remember that in 1991, when the soviet union

kravchuk of crimea, i can't remember who was head of belarusia and yeltsin of russia broke up the soviet union to take gorbachev's job away from him. >> suskevich of belarus. >> yes. suskevich of belarus. that fit into putin's sort of determination here. and i think we need to be -- you talk about sanctions we've put on. i think we need to be confident and careful and positive. putin is antic like sort of getting. brzezinski said we

should talk to him and tell him how we feel about ukraine, will he listen in your view or has he already got an agenda here? >> well, i think already had a chance to listen as far as i recall, secretary of state kerry flew to london just a few days ago on the eve of all this and had self hours of talks with foreign minister lavrov. and they produced precisely nothing. and i think president putin had decided a while back on this course. and he's -- he's executed it. this is grave. this is the first act of annexation in europe since the second world war. other word for anextation is anschlus. i think president putin's perception of the united states nd the west is of a somewhat is upine and somewhat divided

west and united states and certainly pivot to asia does not look like such a great idea right now. and when i look down that sanctions list, you know, these are pretty much kind of second level characters. i'm not sure there isn't a case for taking sanctions at this point right up to the very summit. and perhaps, look, if i recall correctly, at the conference in bucharest in 2008 where there's a lot of discussion of putting georgia on a track to nato membership. he russians, putin, warned that this would have serious consequences. and as a result of that, we -- we held back. we did not give georgia the so-called m.a.p. what happened? three months later, despite this concession -- i'm not sure

this is a man who listens to concessions, who sees concessions. i think what is his language? his language is strength. so i think unless you respond to his strength with our own form of strength, you end up losing. and that i think is the situation we are in today. >> well, what can we really do? >> well, i think -- if i may, i think in the bottom line of the answer has to be enlargement. enlargement of the european union at least. we cannot i think, take from moscow a veto on whether free countries to the east of the european union want to be members of the european union or not. >> i think our task is one, to give putin a sense that there's an option. a better option. that's my first point which i've already made. there are people in russia who are very worried about what is happening. there were 50,000 people in the

-- a regime demonstrating against this war just a few days ago. they're worried. we ought to convey to putin you can have a deal that's reassuring, but it's not a victory for you. second, we have to consider seriously the possibility in view of what he said and which i've quoted that he will try the crimean operation in ukraine itself. with one very important distinction. the crimean operation was premised on the ability of quick denyability. if something went wrong, if all of a sudden there was a lot of resistance, he could say we never attacked. these guys weren't mine. forget it. some sort of a local incident. he can't do that in ukraine. if he goes into ukraine, either there is an engagement or there isn't. and i think we need to talk to the ukrainians seriously. and try to establish to our own satisfaction or maybe they'll tell us or share something with us, are they really there to defend their territory? because if they are, we should

make it even more clear to putin, don't plunge into that adventure. because that can have consequences. and i certainly wouldn't tell the ukrainians, since they have already asked us for resistance that what we're willing to provide are prepackaged military food. meals. >> yeah. >> which we have told them. that is so far our contribution to their capacity for self-defense. i think we should indicate we're not going to be at war. we're not committed to war. but if you resist, you will certainly gain the sympathy of the west. just as finland did in 1939 and 1940 when stalin attacked finland. and that creates pressure to do more. and that becomes something that putin has to consider. can he really undertake a war at this stage in the heart of europe, given the state of this economy? which is really very bad. and still they're relatively retarded state of his military which is only being modernized. if he did this 10 years from

now he might be in much better shape. but right now i don't think a serious conflict in that part of europe is something that putin would welcome. he would like to have a quickie. either the brakeup of ukraine or some upheaval within ukraine. and we have to reassure him in a constructive fashion that that is somewhat unlikely because we have interests, too. >> do you think general scowcroft that the europeans will go along with meaningful sanctions? >> i think they're more likely to now than they were when this crisis first started. ut i think part of the problem has been we have both the u.s. and the europeans been lazy about this whole thing. the e.u. made an offer for a relationship with ukraine. it was a little bit here, a little bit there. maybe some of this. maybe some of that and so on. didn't amount to anything.

putin turns around and offers some $15 billion loan. now, what -- billion. now, what the united states could have done at that time, and i think should have done, is to say, look, ukraine's economy is in terrible shape. let us, the united states, the e.u., and russia, put together a program of assistance to ukraine to start them out. get them going again. i don't know if it would have worked. but we're now assuming that what we've got to do is match them belligerence by belligerence by belligerence. and that may be where we end up. but i don't think we ought to start there. and just one other point. ukraine is a very interesting state.

it's not just a country. it's three countries. well, two if you take out crimea now. but there's the crimea which is russian for all practical purposes in terms of its -- most and a few who have been driven out. then there's east ukraine. the eastern, roughly half. that is primarily of russian extraction. there is west ukraine which has a long history with poland, with lithuania, with austria. they're very different kinds of evolutions here. and so when you say ukraine this, and ukraine that, what is it you're talking about? and putin has done one thing that maybe he hasn't calculated right. there may be some votes or elections around here. he has changed the relative

balance of the populations. because crimea was russian. period. and now that's out of the mix. so the balance between the two russias are left is much closer. and remember, putin was also said, you know, that there was a coup against the president, yanukovych who was a russian stooge. and i don't remember what i was going to say now. >> that you were right. >> he was. >> but now, now the government is a government primarily of west ukraine. and that's different. and putin sees that difference. d what he says is throughout yanukovych and put in your fascist -- >> let me throw this out because it's something that we're seeing a lot of in the

press. and did this have anything to do with how the united states is now perceived in the world? >> i think it does. to some degree. i think putin had the perception that he could get away with this. trans-atlanticism, that's so 20th century. who cares about that? you got the polls. lithuanians. they think article five's important. they're fussing about nato and they want nato protection for some reason. who knows why? and i think there was a sense, not only of that division, but of a united states where the operative word is retrenchment. the united states after two painful wars, once to -- wants to look after its own for a while.

while i don't think there's any direct link, i do think it's a matter of great concern when the united states of america sets a red line as it did in syria, on the issue of chemical weapons. and walks all the way up to the response called for by that red line. and then is seen at the last minute to step back from that. i think that sends a message. that registers around the world. it's not something people immediately forget. so i'm not saying there's a direct cassel link. but i think there is a sense of disunity and weakness. and on that basis, president putin, who is a man who -- whose psychology understands above all force, strength, brutality, when necessary, i think that gave him a kind of green light. what he did actually in crimea, i covered the war in bosnia.

this is exactly what president mill soveing did -- mile serving did in bosnia. this attempt to get plausible denyability. i rode on buses with them from belgrade. and still got these guys, these terrible photographs of the ukrainian army and navy walking out of their barracks with their hands up. and the soldiers, pointing their machine guns at them, are in camouflage, and no identifiable insignia. what is this? >> do you think dr. brzezinski, did this have anything to do with how the united states is perceived rightly or wrongly? >> probably up to a point, yes. and even right now. i'm a little surprised with all that's happening, the president of the united states hasn't spoken to the country about the problem. hasn't put it in a larger context. he gave a brief statement in

the bowels of the white house regarding these minimalist sanctions. and then walked out of the room. didn't say much to the american people. so i don't think there's that much clarity abroad yet about our position. i hope it will emerge in sharper relief. >> i want to hear from general scowcroft on this, too. let's say both of you if you were advising the president, if you were the national security advisor -- >> i already told you what i would do. >> what would you do right now? >> i would still one make an attempt to see if the russians are receptive to a larger accommodation regarding ukraine and a generous one and a balanced one. but also try to make more certain that the ukrainians know what they're going to do and are prepared to do it. and if push comes to shove, start indicating rather heavily that will not be indifferent and will not be passive. on that subject, let's not exaggerate the divisions in ukraine. there are some russians in ukraine. but the russians speaking ukrainians are not russians. they're like the swiss. the swiss speak german or

french. neither one or the other is planning to join france or germany. that's rather important. and look at some key people. one of the sort of new heroic figures is cliff could have. -- is klitchkov. he didn't speak ukrainian but mostly russian but picked it up. the grayton mi of yanukovych ts 0 dorna. he net and she speaks ukrainian. she spoke russian. this is much more of a nation than we allow. and they were denied their national identity. for long, long time. but since 19th century it started evolving. and developing. and acquiring a spirit of its own. and its own heroes and its own history. they for example reject the notion of kiev, being kiev and

rus meaning russian. they emphasized it's kiev and ruthenian of which they are the descendant but not russians. it was greek orthodox, it wasn't russian orthodox of the most people ignore that. russian orthodox emerged on -- in the 14th and 15th century. it was greek orthodox. so they're asserting their own identity and claiming their own history and there is a dispute on this subject. between them and the russians. but putin publicly has said not just this time but previously, ukraine is not a nation. russia and ukraine are one nation. a lot of ukrainians, majority of ukrainians reject that. >> what would you advise the president right now, general? >> well, as i said, i think that -- i think the president ought to offer what he hasn't offered yet which is that we put together a program for ukraine and see if you can get -- move away from the direction we're going. back to where the problem started.

i don't know if it will work. nd it may be that -- it may be that putin does think we've lost our will. i sort of doubt it. but there are a lot of -- a lot of indications to the contrary. but i think -- and i think we need to remember, we also have other things going. with the russians. you know, if there's to be some progress made in syria, for example, it would certainly be nice if the united states and russia were on the same -- iran. the russians have been basically supportive of us on iran. that's a very important issue, too. so it's not as if this is a cold war waiting to break out and so on. we have had not war relationship. but they haven't been bad everywhere. and it seems to me that if we

can pull this out of the fire, at least give it one more chance, to see whether -- whether putin is along or whether his language is truly the way his mind works. >> you had roger a really terrific piece in the times this week about the parallels of this and world war i. and all of it. how dangerous is this situation right now? >> well, i wrote it because it's the centennial obviously of the outbreak of world war i. gabrelo who shot the arch duke in sarajevo. he was trying to secure the liberty of the south slavs from an imperium. the imperium of austria and hungary. president putin is trying to revive some form of russian

imperm. there aren't any exact parallels but i'm sure there are young folk in ukraine who e feeling passionately indignant about what's happened. and it's there are if you like three ue cranes and also true that one ukraine was recognized and its borders recognized by president putin in 1994 when ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. and that was formal recognition of the borders that have just been trampled upon by president putin. look, i don't want to be alarmist. and i also absolutely agree that on the iran dossier which is a critical one, russian help is important. so everything has to be calibrated. but this is a sea change. it is a new ballgame. and i think the situation is

combustible. both within the ukraine, if president putin chooses to go any further, and potentially in the baltic states. where feelings run very, very high about being ruled from moscow. and i know vice president biden has just been there to reassure them. but if there was any incident, as we just seen, it can take -- as the outbreak of world war i illustrates, it was a 19-year-old kid who precipitated that cataclysm. in combustible situations we don't know what the spark might be. but i think this is a far, far more dangerous situation than many people imagine. >> all right. let's go to the audience. because we'll just start right here. go ahead. you, sir. is there a mic? here comes the mic right here. no, that's a camera.

>> right there. >> the mic. >> right there. >> mic. over here. here we are. >> do you think that snowden has assisted putin in any way y supplying him with ways of collection that we have in the ukraine and the surrounding countries that could have compromised our response? >> i didn't understand that. >> whether snowden -- >> snowden. >> in moscow. >> and whether -- whether he -- >> supplied the russians with intelligence. >> did snowden supply the russians with some kind of intelligence that might have -- >> compromised our -- >> compromised us in going in. >> no way of answering that without knowing what he has and what he has given to the russians. don't know what he has.

[question inaudible] >> probably more than one country. but i don't think we know what he has. and we don't know what he has given to the questions. >> right here. >> thank you. back to what you were saying a moment ago in terms of this eing a game changer, the legacy of the post-war period, and it was the fundamental principle was sanctity of borders. now, this principle has been blown away. four reasons that all of you gentlemen have explained well, history, the complexity, also the russian empire, ukraine, this and that, we all understand. and we understand that i think we can have sympathy on the fact that most of the crimeans are russian ethnic russian.

however as you pointed out, there was a treaty. sanctioned. and the treaty of budapest i believe it is. in which the united states, great britain, and russia, guaranteed the ukrainian borders. now, this principle has been blown away. i think the president obama is trying to say wait a minute. we cannot do this. and you cannot get away with it. what -- and you have explained that we don't really have that many options. but if this principle of sanctity of borders, which is at the foundation of peace in europe, is blown away, then what? then what -- what will the united states be able to do to repair this? because now we are most likely going to allow this to happen. because there's not going to be any going back i believe. in other words, putin is not going to give back the crimea to the ukraine. then the principle of sanctity of borders has been infringed. is that an issue of great consequence? or can we just let this go? thank you.

>> i don't think it's an issue of that great of consequence. we didn't think so, either, with respect to kosovo. which is a similar sort of action. as a matter of fact, we used force to try to make it happen. so i don't -- i don't think that's a fundamental issue. >> dr. brzezinski. >> i think it could be a fundamental issue. but i agree with brent that it isn't yet. for one very simple reason. the ukrainians didn't resist in crimea. maybe they couldn't. but they didn't. and that makes it very different. because there was a kind of complacency or accommodation on their part. but i'm concerned that the issue could become much greater, especially in view of what putin is saying, that there is going to be a challenge to the integrity and independence of the ukraine. >> that would be very divent. >> and -- he different. >> and that would be very different.

>> the lady in the back. >> thank you. my voice of america, my question is simple and short, how safe might georgia be given this new development? can we expect russia's farther expansion into the south? thank you. >> i couldn't hear that. >> and would you identify yourself again? and where are your children? > mia kay, voice of america, georgia in service. >> very difficult for us -- the sound is a little muffled. we know who she is. but what was the question? [laughter] maybe if you had come up here, i'm sorry to ask you to do this but it's very difficult back here. go ahead. >> thank you. again, maya kay from voice of america, georgiaian service. can we expect russia's farther military expansion toward

georgia? how safe might georgia be? >> does anybody get that? >> yeah. the question is how safe should georgia feel? i think the fact is having talked to a couple of georgiaians who attended our conference, georgians do not feel in the least bit safe. in fact, they feel threatened. and of course those kinds of feelings, whether they're rational or irrational, doesn't particularly come into it. if you're afraid, you're afraid. and when you've already lost 20% of your territory, as georgia has, and you see what's just happened in crimea, and you see both e.u. and nato basically slamming on the brakes whenever anybody mentions any notion of georgia coming into either the e.u. or nato, then you think, well, what's our future here?

you know, we've got president putin out there eyeing us and to the west, which is the direction you want to go in, we don't see much receptiveness. so that is a very disturbing situation for georgians. i don't expect president putin to move on georgia today, tomorrow, or this year. but that possibility is there. and he knows it's there. that's the way -- that's the way he wants it to be. and to come back to your question, i do think it's a serious -- a serious change. kosovo was not annexed. kosovo, which is 90% plus ethnically albanian became independent after a bloody war across the former yugoslavia that went on for a decade. this is not the place to go into all that but i don't think

it's a precise parallel. and i'm sure many of you read president putin's long at the time of the syrian conflict, where he was saying the only thing we have between the world and the abyss is the rule of law, the sanctity of borders, the centrality of the u.n. security council. international law is the only basis on which to conduct human affairs. orwellian does not begin to describe it. >> doyle mcmanus from the "los angeles times." i would like to sharpen the question on what the united states is prepared to do if the ukraine says it is prepared to resist further russian incursion into its territory from the east and south.