ukraine, belarus georgia armenia, moldova, and azerbaijan . but the initiative has not gone as smoothly as planned. based last eastern partnership summit was held in 2013, and it triggered a political crisis in ukraine that remains unresolved today. that's down to one key player -- russia. and its efforts to hold on to influence in the post-soviet space. moscow has responded by putting together its own trade bloc -- the eurasian economic union. two members of the eastern partnership have joined so far -- belarus and armenia. ukraine has indicated its ambitions lie in the other direction along with georgia and moldova. all three states have signed association agreements with the eu and say their goal is to become full members of the union , but they also all have breakaway regions that want to move closer to russia, and the eu has to decide how to balance integration with the risk of further conflict. >> can the eu reach out without angering moscow? for some insight, let's bring in max hoffman. the main focus at the summit, of course, ukraine.

it has also sent troops into moldova, but moldova wants out and which russia pledged to withdraw in 1999 so russia has been violating the territorial integrity of its neighbors for years and continues to do so. that brings me to my second principle the independence of states. ukraine's desire to move closer to the european union was met by force. so was georgia's aspirations -- as prayings to join nato -- aspiration to join nato. moldova has also received clear warnings about closer moves toward europe. russia's leaders claim that its neighborhood represents a zone of privileged interests. but its efforts to create the sphere of influence risk taking us back in time to when greater powers when great powers drew lines on the map at the expense of smaller states. and nations were not free to decide their own destiny. this could create a sphere of instability for us all. and it's not the sort of europe we want -- we will accept 25 years after the end of the cold war. the third principle is transparency and predictability in military activities. for decades we built a stable european securit

moldova has received clear warnings about the move toward europe.hey claim that the neighborhood represents the privileged interest but it's to create the inference and take us back in time. so when the great powers drew the lines on the map at the expense of the smaller states, the nations were not free to decide their own destiny this could create a severe instability and it's not the sort of europe that we want. we will accept at the end of the cold war. the third is transparency and predictability in the military activities. we built a stable system based on fewer forces fewer weapons and large exercises and more information sharing. an army arms control agreements to build trust and confidence across the former dividing lines these reduce the risk calculations and the conventional forces in europe put limits on the numbers of movements of equipment like tanks and fighter tanks but russia unilaterally suspended the implementation. the open skies treaty allows us to look at the territory to increase transparency. but russia is obstructing these a

[applause] >> representing the republic of moldova, his excellency, and world war ii veteran and tuskegeeharles mcgee. [applause] >> representing the country of the netherlands, as deputy chief of mission and holocaust survivor, miss luis israel who is originally from the netherlands. [applause] >> representing the country of new zealand is defense attache and world war ii veteran mr. harry miller. [applause] >> representing norway, major general finn christian and world war ii veteran, mr. james taylor. [applause] >> representing the country of poland, its defense. military, and air attache and holocaust survivor, miss helena peabody. [applause] >> representing the country of russia, mr. maxim, acting military atache and accompanying him is world war ii veteran -- [applause] >> representing slovakia acccompanied by mrs. lawrence shelby reynolds. [applause] >> representing the country of south africa, its ambassador. accompanying him world war ii veteran mr. clarence anderson. [applause] >> representing the country of turkmenistan, its ambassador. and world war ii veteran mr. clarence wal

obviously some other countries like moldova and georgia we were concerned about, but we felt that if the u.s. simply encouraged nato to build a wall around the current nato members and say, we are not going to take any cognizance of what happens jan -- beyond the borders of today's members, that would be a big mistake. that is why we came back to the very thorny problem of how to stabilize the situation in ukraine, and reinforce the new government there to where it can settle its difference with no outside interference. at least from the perspective of the u.s. team, that's why they were interested in essentially making a stand in ukraine even though it's not a nato member. >> i think that ties a little bit into the last question about nato, and we drew it out there so i think i have to answer that a little bit. you mentioned that putin uses attention in nato as well. we all can see that. so it ties into korean part as -- the ukraine part as well. as long as we stay strong, there's a lot of agreements that have been broken in the past already. so the baltic states, if you're going to

obviously some other countries like moldova and georgia we were concerned about, but we felt that if the u.s. simply encouraged nato to build a wall around the current nato members and say we are not going to take any cognizance of what happens jan -- beyond the borders of today's members, that would be a big mistake. that is why we came back to the very thorny problem of how to stabilize the situation in ukraine, and reinforce the new government there to where it can settle its difference with no outside interference. at least from the perspective of the u.s. team, that's why they were interested in essentially making a stand in ukraine even though it's not a nato member. >> i think that ties a little bit into the last question about nato, and we drew it out there so i think i have to answer that a little bit. you mentioned that putin uses attention in nato as well. we all can see that. so it ties into korean part as well. as long as we stay strong, there's a lot of agreements that have been broken in the past already. so the baltic states, if you're going to leave there, we're goin

contempt, contempt for the integrity of russia's neighbor, but also in georgia and moldova. disregard for russia's own commitment made in helsinki, paris, and budapest. and so, the world looks different today than it did before he became -- we assumed the presidency. and president putin must understand, as he has changed so has our focus. that is why at this years security conference in munich, i spoke to reassert the fundamental, bedrock principles of a europe whole and free. of influence. and sovereign right to choose our own allies. in particularly, with volatile borders. at the center of russia's fundamental choice over what type of path it will pursue, is the conflict in ukraine, in my view. i have not visited ukraine three times since the current conflict began. and it is hard to fathom, unless you go there, and many of you have, how much they have accomplished for themselves under enormous pressure. correlating people power to rally against corruption, defending their country against brutal russian aggression with the odds against them, staying unified, putting patrio

that's why nato is working with georgia, moldova and ukraine to help them carry out reforms and build strong institutions. of these nations are not the first owns. they are in the sovereign states and have the right to choose and we will continue to help them on the path. because of the neighbors are more stable, we are more secure. ladies and gentlemen for decades as a trans-atlantic community we've kept our people safe. we have erased the visions in europe, we've built a loose based order that the benefits us all. but as ever challenges increase, we must adapt. to protect the values of our open societies and to support our partners this required commitment and solidarity the world is changing and we are changing. but one thing that will not change is our determination to stay and stand united. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. that was a clear and concise message that is urgently needed. we are delighted that you could join us. i am the senior vice president here at the center and what a privilege it is to have your first public address as the secretary general in washington. what

that is that in ukraine, in crimea, in georgia, and all these other places, moldova, russia, brings allf the elements of national power to bear when they begin to exert influence on a nation. back to that dime model: diplomatic, informational, military, and economic. in ukraine, intense diplomatic pressure trying to discredit the government of ukraine and try to bring pressure against all of those supporting organizations in the west that are standing aside of ukraine. informational. i don't need to tell you all how -- how strong, deep, and wide the russian misinformation campaign is out there. militarily, this is probably the biggest change in the last two decades. we've seen now a russia that will use its military to change the international borders of a nation, and then economically we see intense economic and energy pressures on these. so russia is bringing to bear all elements of national power. what i have said continually -- i said it here, not all that long ago, is that we should not unnecessarily take off the plate any of those tools to include military tools, defensive lethal

obviously some other countries like moldova and georgia we were concerned about but we felt that if the.s. simply encouraged nato to build a wall around current nato members and say we're not going to take any cog cognizance. that's where we came back to the thorny problem how to stabilize in kren and enforce that new government there to settle domestic differences with no outside interference. at least from the perspective of the u.s. team, that's why they were interested in essentially making a stand in ukraine even though it's not a nato member. >> we threw it out there i have to answer that a little bit. mentions putin uses attention in nato as well. we all can see that. so it ties into korean part as well. as long as we stay strong, there's a lot of agreements that have been broken in the past already. so the baltic states, if you're going to leave there, we're going to be next. whether it's going to happen or not, it's probably yellow or red line it will never cross. it's a message you sent to the countries. that was the most important part of it. we liked united consensus within

obviously, there are some other countries like moldova and georgia that we were concerned about, but we felt if the u.s. simply encouraged nato e to build a wall around current nato members and say we're not going to take any cognizance of what happens beyond that, the borders of today's nato members that that would be a big mistake. and that's why we came back to the very, very the thorny problem of how to stabilize the situation in ukraine and reinforce that new government there to where it can settle its domestic differences with no outside interference. so at least from the perspective of the u.s. team. that's why they were interested in essentially making a stand in ukraine even a though it's not a nato member at this point. >> yes. and i think that ties a little bit into the last question about nato and we threw it out there, so i think i have to answer that a little bit. karen mentioned that putin uses the tension within nato as well. we all can see that. so as long as we stay strong i mean, there are a lot of agreements that have been broken in the past already, so the baltic

and i personally have greeted some of the leaders that have come from several countries including moldova and ukraine. let me tell you, it will be our generation and the next that will pay the price if this amendment is passed. we simply must engage with this part of the world. we cannot leave her into the hands of the russian bear. i urge strong opposition to the ratcliffe amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. ratcliffe: how much time does the gentlelady -- the chair: both sides have 30 -- each side has 30 seconds remaining. mr. ratcliffe: how many adegreesal speakers does the gentlelady have? i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. ms. wasserman schultz: at this time i yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. farr. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farr: i'd like to respond that there's no legislative program in the state department like this. you can't transfer it there. they're not operative in these countries. to say this could be moved over. this is legislato