>> we take you live now to johns hopkins school of advanced international studies, this is a washington, d.c., for and look at trends in russia-ukraine relations and the role of the west in that dynamic here at johns hopkins date will be hearing from a deputy assistant secretary of state come from the george w. bush administration during the discussion, again watching live coverage here on c-span. also live on c-span2. also live today joe biden will be campaigning in rochester new hampshire. that live coverage scheduled to get underway shortly and you can also watch that at c-span.org or over on c-span or use the free c-span radio app. [inaudible conversations]

>> i like to welcome everybody to russia and eurasia seminar. we do it every two weeks. as you know, and today we, given the speaker we have and the topic he's going to deal with, we had the pleasure of welcoming c-span here, which is broadcasting this event, as far as i can tell, live on c-span two. i'm charles gati. i organized the similars. i say very little because i want the speaker to have as much time as possible. just to give you a little background, he comes from

massachusetts. he went, studied soviet studies at harvard. before that got his ba also in soviet studies and political science from tufts university, at harvard he studied with legendary adam alone, and that tufts with old friend of mine. he laughed washington after some 24 or 25 years, and now he's a professor at, in florida, at the program for human rights and diplomacy at florida international university and moved, is shrouded in mystery

because few people do that perhaps it will tell us, and also declassified information that will allow us to figure out why he left washington just in may of this year, and he is a very nice suntan, as you can tell. so i don't know if he actually works there. i suspect the people in florida have better things to do. but he is very active. he has an op-ed in the "washington post," which i think we have copies available as you leave, printed out, enough copies for everybody. it's that get in the paper but it's on the internet and i suspect it will be the next day hopefully in the paper itself. just briefly, after 25 25 yearn washington he worked extensively

in the state department. he was a deputy assistant secretary of state for eurasia, including ukraine and russia of course. he was also an assistant secretary for democracy and human rights there. he's worked on the policy planning staff committee was an advisor to the undersecretary for global affairs. so we has a very distinguished background, indeed, and he has arranged this current crisis in ukraine after i i invited him o speak here so that the c-span which and all of you would be coming here, which is another major achievement i figured that i ought to mention. david is also a friend of mine and of my wife, who is here, and

you are most welcome here. we are very pleased that you can be here and look forward to your presentation. >> charles, thank you very much. it's great to be back here at sais. u.n. here a few years ago i think, and flute in this morning from miami where i am now based and fortunately it's not that cold here yet, so one of things i don't miss about washington. as charles mention i'm in florida international university now in the stephen j green school of international and public affairs, and and the new director for the european and eurasian studies program as well as with the program on human rights and diplomacy. i'm dual hatted down there and it's been a great move and a good time for a change of scenery as well. so the topic today is "trends in russia-ukraine relations and the role of the west", and it is as

you said charles, a very timely subject these days where we see developments on both sides of the atlantic, and i will try to touch on all of those and also look forward to your questions and comments afterwards. what let me start with a few points that i think are essential for understanding the situation when we look at the russia-ukraine crisis and the role of the west. in 2014 russian forces under the order of vladimir putin invaded ukraine. this is not a civil war. it's not an integral conflict. it is aggression committed by mr. putin against his neighbor, ukraine. there is no ambiguity about this. this. you shouldn't use the term civil war. you shouldn't talk about separatism. this is something that mr. putin launched against ukraine. the nato enlargement which is

sometimes cited as the reason for mr. putin's aggression had nothing to do with what was happening in 2013 and 2014. nobody in 20 '13-'14, whether in ukraine or in europe or the united states was talking about ukraine becoming a member of nato. the issue at the time that triggered moscow's reaction was ukraine's intention to sign agreement with the european union, including an association agreement and that comprehensive free-trade agreement. that's what triggered this, , nt any talk about nato enlargement to include ukraine. third, this isn't a frozen conflict. this is a hot war, where ukrainians are being injured and killed on a daily basis. the violence has that side a little bit as result of some cease-fire agreements, but more

than 13,000 ukrainians have been killed as a result of mr. putin's aggression. more people have been killed in this conflict since the signing of the minsk agreement in february 2015 than were killed before the signing of that agreement. so any notion that the minsk accords, , as they are called, s brought about a cessation in hostilities is simply not true. fourth, those in the donbass, and i mean the so-called local leadership and done yes are not separatist. they are either russians themselves or russian backed forces who are trying to gaze -- destabilize ukraine. there wasn't a separatist movement in either of the donbass or in crimea before russia moved in. which leads me to the next point, crimea is part of ukraine. it was recognized by the

international community as part of ukraine with the breakup of the soviet union under the accords in the oecd, and under the budapest memorandum signed in 1994. i'll come back to the budapest memorandum in a minute. the west, in my view, should never recognize what is widely considered the illegal annexation of crimea. moreover,, we should be paying more attention to the situation in crimea with the human rights conditions are absolutely appalling. where crimean tatar school been victimized many times over the decades are being victimized once again -- tar tars have been victimized -- mr. putin in my view bears responsibility for the over 13,000 ukrainians killed in this conflict, some 2 million who have been displaced, enormous economic damage and i would argue the shootout of the malaysian airliner in july 2014 july 201h

298 people were murdered. in my view, mr. putin has the blood of ukrainians and others on his hand for what he has done here. and last point to start things to set the stage, i haven't seen anything that mr. putin has done that deserves an easing of sanctions, of membership in a parliamentary assembly of the council of europe which russian was allowed to rejoin back in the spring, or certainly a return to the g8. russia still occupies and threatens ukrainian territory. russia has not withdrawn mr. putin doesn't deserve any breaks from the sanctions and actions that were taken by the international community. let's fast-forward to the current situation with the

impeachment inquiry and the scandal that we are witnessing here. even before the phone call that president trump may 2 president zelensky on july 25 of this year, key, according to media reports, had a very negative view of ukraine. the "washington post" reported, for example, that it a former senior administration official who were people he discussed the issue with president trump said that the president thought court, what we were doing in ukraine was pointless and just aggravating the russians. the official went on to say the president position basically is we should recognize the fact that the russians should be our friend, and who cares about the ukrainians? the "new york times" had a similar report, saying that president trump has had harsh words about ukraine. they are terrible people, he is quoted as having said. they are all corrupt and they try to take me down.

and it is this sense where the president and his personal attorney have been arguing that, in fact, it was ukrainian collusion with the democrats and the clinton campaign, not russian collusion with the trump campaign that should be the focus of investigation. in addition, mr. giuliani has been trying to push for further investigation of vice, former vice president biden son, hunter biden, and his role with the ukraine company. this despite being one of the first leaders president trump is one of first leaders to congratulate newly elected president zelensky after his landslide victory, 73% of the vote at the end of april of this year. also despite the fact president trump in contrast to his predecessor, president obama, president trump was the one who

agree to provide lethal military assistant to ukraine to all it defend itself against aggressive russian forces. i don't support this decision by president trump i think is right thing to do and i strongly criticize president obama for his refusal to allow this kind of assistance to ukraine as russia was moving in. and yet despite all this it seems more recently that the president, president trump, has been giving ukraine and president zelensky a cold shoulder. in his congratulatory call after president zelensky victory people come president trump promised an oval office visit for president zelensky, and ukrainians have been waiting for this to happen. in addition, as you know from reports, there was also additional military assistance that was supposed to go to ukraine in the amount of $391 million. and it appears that for whatever reason, spinning on whom you listen to, there are different explanations, that aid was held up because of concerns either

about corruption or because thee president wanted to use it as leverage to push for an investigation. it sends the wrong signal when we look at lessons we're trying to convey about rule of law. when we stress the importance of the politicizing the judicial process, when we try to say that you shouldn't seek revenge against political opponents. these are messages that president putin might send, not an american president. the role of mr. giuliani has painted a terrible image of ukraine. he seems unconcerned with the damage he's doing to ukraine and its relationship with the united states by spin it as a country that is hopelessly corrupt. ukraine for sure has a huge corruption problem, but to say it is hopelessly corrupt i think

is a mistake. all of this is music to mr. putin's years. the release of the memorandum of the telephone conversation also cause problems for residents of linsky with germany and france, where he is quoted as making some fairly disparaging comments about european governments. .. after winning with 73% of the vote. after seeing his party, the servant of his people when in ukraine's history since 1991, when a majority of the parliamentary elections in july. you would think this would be a

time where they are embracing him, engaging him, helping him. dealing with challenges inside the country. instead, i think many ukrainians are feeling abandoned and confused. that, unfortunately, plays into the hands of mr. putin. we have seen the release of 35 ukrainian prisoners who should have never been held including sailors that were kidnapped and an attack on ukrainian vessels last november. in exchange, russia got 35 people return to their country, including someone connected to a shootdown of the malaysian airliner. i would argue probably he feels he has to make the best of a

situation. if he senses that western countries are not there to back him up and support him. he has also discovered that that can prove problematic on the home front where we saw protests this last weekend with ukrainians turning out on the streets that he was making too many concessions to mr. putin. there was an agreement struck, tentative agreement, at, at least on october 1 to provide a framework on event you'll elections in the regions. in which they would also receive special status if those elections were held according to ukrainian electoral standards. interpretation of this agreement has already been very different depending on whether you listen to the russian side or the ukrainian side. there is, unfortunately,

ukrainians feel a sense of pressure from europe and the united states to end this conflict. there seems to be a desire here in this city, among some some and certainly european capitals to return to businesses with mr. this has gone on too long for many europeans. it has affected our trade. it's affected our ability to get along with moscow. instead of applying pressure on russia, instead of ramping up sanctions and a significant, serious way, to apply more pressure on mr. putin, and said they seem to be doing it on mr. zelinski. the wrong point to my view. ukrainians are fed up with corruption. zelinski was victorious in the ukrainian election because he campaigned against corruption.

there are concerns, as i mentioned, about, about certain individuals and their ability to influence decisions. the chief of staff of the president is a former lawyer and have a lot of questions have been raised about that. they are the ones that should be tired of for, not us us in the west. we are the ones fighting and defending for our country. and yet, putin is is taking advantage, looking to exploit western support for ukraine and taking advantage of what he hopes will be a new president there that doesn't know the ropes. he tried this right after zelinski one where he announced and easing of passports for those living there. he handled that very well. but there are more tests coming for him that we have already seen. it is worth, i think, stepping back for a moment, to see how we

got to this point. i mentioned briefly the budapest memorandum. an agreement signed in 1994. in which the united states, the united kingdom, kingdom, russia and ukraine reaffirmed their commitment to rue crane to respect the independence and existing borders of ukraine. the existing borders included crimea as part of ukraine. it reaffirmed those countries obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of ukraine. none of their weapons will ever be used against ukraine except in self-defense. it also reaffirmed their commitment to ukraine to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate their own interest of the rights inherent in sovereignty and a secure

advantage of any kind. i am reading from the memorandum in exchange to give up the nuclear weapons inherited from the soviet union after the breakup. ukraine became the third largest nuclear weapons power after the breakup of the soviet union. in exchange to turn over those nuclear weapons to russia, russia, the united united states in the uk signed this agreement. russia, of course, has violated the budapest memorandum and we have not lived up to our obligations. it is not a treaty, it does not incur article five security guarantees, but what ukraine relinquished, it is pretty significant, to say say the least. you can also look to 2004. the orange the orange revolution

in ukraine. remember this name. prime minister at the time, sought to to steal an election. in doing so, he was supported by mr. putin who visited ukraine several times. sought to encourage a crackdown on the protesters in that revolution. the president, at that time, decided not to deploy forces and the ukrainian military also would not accept any orders to do so. we saw the orange revolution succeed through a rerun of the election there. fast-forward to 2010. cove which again comes back. he wins a free and fair election. i was there to observe the second round of that election in 2010. after securing victory in 2010,

he launched into a terribly corrupt direction and also cued very closely to a pro- russian line. the spark, the revolution of dignity in 2013 or 14 that came in the first term as president came as a result of ukraine's intention to sign agreements with the european union. it is the european union, not nato. in november 2013, ukraine along with -- plan to sign agreements with the european union. russia pressured the armenians to back out of these agreements and armenia agreed. it also pressured mr. ghana college. just a week before a summit

agreed not to sign them. after treating the european union as a much lesser evil than nato, mr. putin got into his mind that they european union was bad news for moscow. signing agreements with the european union meant that these countries were moving at a more westward direction towards deeper integration with the community and he wanted to stop that. he pressured him into not signing these agreements. the result was a social media movement that led a few months later to him fleeing power, going to russia and a new government coming in. there were more than 100 people killed during the violence. unlike 2004 with the orange revolution, there was terrible

violence this time. downtown ukraine. he has the blood of those people on his hands. we then see a sense of panic and moscow. the revolution, if successful, could possibly spread to russia itself. in 2011 and 12, huge protests in russia. continued up until may of 2012 when putin awarded a crackdown on the protesters. putin was already a little spooked by people turning up in the streets in his own country and was fearful if ukrainians could bring about the end of the regime, maybe this would spread. it was not ukrainians responsible for this in his mind, it was the united states.

accusing secretary of state ascending a signal. he assumed it was outside forces it was the west. particularly, the united states. putin refuses to believe whether in his own country or ukraine or elsewhere that people on their own could continuously rise up against corrupt government. he has to find a country to scapegoat. a responsible party. invariably, that winds up being us. you also need to keep in mind putin's views towards ukraine. in 2008, he famously eight, he famously said, george, you have to understand ukraine is not even a country. part of his territories and eastern europe.

in putin's mind, ukraine does not even exist as a separate independent state. for him to trample on that was not such a big deal. the invasion of ukraine as well is important to keep in mind. not the first time russian forces had been used against neighboring states. in 2008, russian forces invaded georgia. in august of that year. russia has used economic tools as weapons, including against ukraine. the cyber attack against estonia and then from there we see much more brazen attacks in the so-called hybrid war tactics that russia uses. putin's number one goal is staying in power.

his number two goal is staying in power. guess what is number three goal is. staying in power. he will do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal. invading a neighboring state to undermine the possibility of a successful revolution that could represent a threatening alternative to his model in russia. ukraine became a victim of putin's determination to stay in power. his dismissive attitude towards the country was also a factor. putin initially denied that russian forces were in crimea. until of course he admitted otherwise. we had to take unavoidable steps so that event did not develop as they are currently developing in southeast ukraine in april 2014. of course, our troops stood behind the self-defense forces. in december 2015, almost two years after the initial invasion, putin acknowledged the presence of special forces in

the region. we never said there were not people there that carried out certain tasks, including in the military sphere he declared. trying to draw a distinction between troops and specialists or even volunteers. people on vacation, he would would try to explain. putin's invasion of vision of ukraine starting in late february 2014 marked the first annexation of one european country territory since world war ii. threatening the entire order and stability and peace in europe. putin thumbed his nose at 1975. 1997 russia ukraine treaty. paris charter of 1990 and the budapest manor random i talked

about already. the post cold war order was torn to shreds. the concern was if putin's brazen act was left unchallenged, other regimes would think that they, too, could engage in this kind of activity and get away with it. putin might move into other countries. rightly, the eu in the united states and other countries, canada among them, and posed a series of series of sanctions on russia. those sanctions had not been ramped up much since 2014-15. in order for sanctions to be effective, the target has to think that he will get hit with more sanctions unless he changes his behavior. otherwise, they can get adjusted

to sanctions. that is more or less what has happened. an impact on the regime and russia. i do not think there is any denying it. sanctions kept putin from going further into ukraine. they have not changed the overall russian behavior under mr. putin. sanctions have been linked. there were two versions of this. one side and in september 2014. the other february, 2015. both badly flawed agreements. they were forced to sign these accords because they were under tremendous duress from approaching russian forces. neither version, but the february 2, 0151 is now the one people refer to. neither refers to crimea. there is no reference to crimea whatsoever.

that is sort of left for another day. there is talk about elections one day. areas that are essentially controlled by russian forces. that is where there was some agreement, overture in this regard, recently with with russian officials. the problem is, you cannot conduct elections there under current circumstances. under current conditions. ukrainians do not control those areas. russian foreign forces is present. over 200 people this place. how will they vote in these elections. who was going to observe them? conducting elections on the current circumstances would disenfranchise those 2 million people.

it would not be according to standards and it would not be under ukraine's control. ukraine has now been saying these elections will not take place as long as there are russian forces on ukrainian territory. the kremlin, not surprising, has a different interpretation of this. they should be granted special status once the elections are over. what putin wants is for them to have vito control in a federal system which ukrainians have rejected. in order to veto the aspirations to integrate more closely with the eu and nato. under growing pressure not to yield to these demands. as i said, i think the sanctions that i've been posed are the right thing to do. i wish we would see more of them i was starting to see that ambassador jon huntsman in an

op-ed yesterday criticized the sanctions that are in place for russia. i have not heard a convincing argument including reading that op-ed of critics sanctions on what we should do in place of sanctions. if we say that putin's invasion of ukraine is unacceptable, then we have to do something about it otherwise, we accepted. sanctions was our way, this is unacceptable in this is the price you pay. i welcome anyone here, if you think sanctions are a bad idea, what would you do instead to demonstrate to mr. putin that his invasion is unacceptable and will incur significant costs. >> lastly, we see in the current controversy the role of vice

president biden. and his involvement in ukraine matters in the previous administration. he, in my view, played a very positive role. keep in mind that president obama never visited ukraine. despite the fact that it had been invaded by russia during his presidency. he did visit once when he was a senator. president obama never visited. vice president biden was designated as the point person for ukraine policy. in 2016, he, along with the entire government, many european governments, imf and others, advocated for the dismissal of the prosecutor general at the time. not because investigating the company hunter biden had a position, but because he was not doing his job.

in a quick side note, i think hunter biden's decision's decision to take this position showed terrible judgment. i think that it was very inappropriate for him to have had this role at the same time his father was playing such an active role in ukrainian policy. mr. biden violating any laws. in fact, he said they had closed the investigation to the extent it was active in the first place. now there is pressure on ukrainian officials to take another look into hunter biden's activity there. again, this is an issue that is complicating u.s. ukrainian relations deeply. at the end of the day, with tensions and relations, the party that benefits from that is

moscow. i think we need to approach all of these issues very carefully. very openly. very transparently. recognizing the huge mandate by which he won is deserving of our support. our engagement, our our embrace and our help at a time he is facing enormous challenges in our country. i hope that soon policy can get back on the right track so we can support ukraine in defending itself against putin's aggression. helping its deal with the cancerous problem of corruption and recognize that sovereignty which president trump is certainly talking about are sacrosanct. with that, let me stop there. >> thank you very much, david. candid, hard-hitting, as well as

comprehensive. look primarily at the original sources of this aggression against ukraine and the crisis that has since developed there. let me ask you to questions. before i open it up. i think very correctly you stressed the responsibility towards the crisis. especially washington, you you know better than i, it is easy to always blame the united states for whatever happens. as you pointed out, there are reasons for that. i happen to share your criticism of obama's weakness and reluctance to get engaged more than he did. foreign policy in the second obama administration was not what it should have been. the issue is really as you

highlighted, russian aggression. and, yet, today, to talk against which you indirectly spoke so eloquently, the talk is trump, not putin. there are good reasons for this for sure. but trump, the issue on which i would like you to comment are these. trump has declined or refused to criticize putin for the very aggression that you saw eloquently and factually described. so far as to try to encourage zelinski to negotiate with russia from a position of utter weakness which is about the last ring he should be doing. in addition to all the other

facts that i will not detail, raising the question, again, i wonder if you would care to speculate about this, you are very familiar from recent years, how do you explain to your self trumps motives. very hard to discuss at times we don't even begin to do a good job explaining our own actions. is it simply that he likes strong men, as some people suggest? is it that he has financial interests or hopes for financial interests in moscow or elsewhere is it possible that the russians

have compromising information about him and that is why he is kissing up to putin as much as he has? i am seeing a little bit more about this, if you are willing to speculate. i understand you don't know it either. none of us can know it for sure. it would be very interesting for us if you would say a few words. the second question has to do with the telephone call. now, i shared the view that this was outrageous. i shared the view that there was an implicit quick pro quote and, of course, if the remaining parts of the conversation rd classified, where there are the three dots between sentences

finding out more as well. i suspect that we will. and, yet, maybe this is too much of a theoretical question. without, in any way trying to mitigate trumps approach, i just wonder if this is as new as we will pose trump or i strongly oppose him maintain. i recall towards the end of world war ii, president roosevelt talked about eastern europe. he told him, something to the effect, i paraphrase, go easy on poland. which was guided, of course, by

domestic political interest on the part of president roosevelt because of all the, you know, polish american vote that he wanted to have, understandably. he wanted polish americans to vote for him. he asked, you know, not to impose, or at least not right away. there was a period of a couple of years after the end of world war ii when there was a period of transition. was that all that different from what trump is doing now? don't we always get some domestic considerations? maybe too much into our foreign policy or, conversely, isn't it just foreign policy analysts outside the political realm. maybe here in washington.

people like you and me to believe that a pure, nonpolitical approach to foreign policy is possible. those are my two questions. >> let me start with the first and answer it this way. at least what i think i know rather than speculate on what i don't know. i think that without question, president trump trump has shown an affinity. you see this not just with putin, you see it in many different places. do tart day in the philippines. it is a long list. you fell in love with kim which, i think if if any other president said that would have launched outrage. and, i don't know why, but, he has this affinity for strongmen leaders.

in addition, he has i think a misunderstanding of what the problem is in u.s. russian relations. a candidate and as president he frequently says one it'd be great if we and russia got along. the problem is, that's a the wrong question to ask. the answer is of course it be great. the right question to ask is, is it possible for the united states and russia to get along as long as the putin regime is in power without sacrificing our powers, interest and other countries in the process. the answer to that question is no. i think the president needs to reframe his question. reframe his thinking and understand that while we are not at fault in this relationship over the years, the fast bolt of blame lies in the kremlin and with mr. putin. individuals matter.

more hopes and possibilities when yeltsin was the president of russia. i would see no hope whatsoever. a relationship that is protective for other countries in the process to be a fruitful one. president and administrations. do keep in mind political considerations and foreign policy. it is just human nature. in that case you sided with fdr,

he was asking for something with u.s. national interest. a national interest. seeding those countries be independent and not in control of the soviet union. it did essentially take him over the president is asking the newly elected president of ukraine in a country that is a serious problem. asking him to meet the attorney general and the private attorney general looking into ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election

january 2017. i do see those as very different. >> thank you very much. the floors open for questions and comments. i would like to call initially, if you would just identify your cells and all others come after. we do love our students. i would, obviously, ask whatever you want to ask. i would like to remind you of professor kramer's request that if you think the sanctions are extensive or excessive or not particularly helpful or effective, if you have a different view on this, please

don't hesitate to bring it up and we will give him a chance to respond. first question here. >> second-year student. focusing on the russian track. the prices of 1992. it seems again that russia is creating more influence. i do not think that the sanctions are working. increase in sanctions. providing it to what the u.s. and allies should do.

especially during the situation where ukraine american relations are getting hit and playing directly into his hands. >> great. thank you. >> i think you are right to raise parallels and complex. mulled over and georgia. the common theme here is that you see russian forces occupying other countries territory. in the case of georgia, 20% is occupied by russian forces. it is, you know, about half 1 million people in a country a little less than 4 million people. what you see that is consistent is an attempt by putin, although, the other conflicts

predated 10. they have not been solved under putin either. acting as a de facto veto under these aspirations. the thinking, i assume in the kremlin is occupy. georgia and ukraine are. there was a request for membership action plan. that is different than an actual membership. if you occupy their territory, no way the eu and especially native. article five security guarantees an attack on all.

how could you possibly provide article five security guarantees if russian forces are occupying georgia. what i think needs to be done in that case is to make clear that russian occupation of another country's territory will not serve as a de facto veto over that country's aspirations. there have been examples over the years, west and east germany, 30 years ago. and, west germany became a nato member state. reunification happened, all of germany did. conditions made because of contested territory. i think you can pursue integration with native eu in these countries and create some

system and mechanism where article five at least for the time being would not extend to those territories. if you don't be imaginative and creative in coming up with ways to address countries aspirations that want to join these organizations, the kremlin wins. they have establishing created a de facto veto over these. it is entirely inconsistent with that memorandum. in terms of the sanctions, i agree. i want more sanctions. that is my criticism. it's not that i want to lift the sanctions and try something else, the alternative is you try nothing or you send in military force. ukrainians are not asking us to send troops, they are asking us to send missiles and other types of systems. not asking us to fight their fight for them. making sure that we provide that

lethal military assistance. i am glad that the hold on the assistance that was imposed has been lifted. largely due to congressional pressure and a terrific editorial on this issue. i also think that there needs to be a lot more sanctions imposed if we want to see this conflict resolved. in a way that satisfies ukraine's solitary integrity. right now, as we both have said, the impression is the pressure is on sill and skied not on putin. yes, there are sanctions on russia for what it's done in ukraine. it really has not been a significant increase of sanctions from either the eu or the united states. unless and until that happens, i do not think you will see it. >> start imposing sanctions on those that have the highest trade with russia as may be an

alternative to direct the sanctions to russian government. >> as you know, talk about sanctioning companies involved in the pipeline. a pipeline going straight from russia to germany under the baltic sea. it would obviate the need for the pipeline that currently goes across ukraine. that pipeline that currently exists from russia through ukraine to other countries that received the energy brings in about two-$3 billion a year in revenue per year. that pipeline is very important. ukraine has made great progress in reducing its dependence on russia for energy. it needs that money from transit fees with that pipeline. north stream to would make that unnecessary. do you sanction the companies, western companies involved, that

pipeline is almost finished. the german government will argue that it it is, based on commercial interest. north stream one. it's called to, it is not at full capacity. if it is not at full capacity, why on earth do you need to other than to screw ukraine, basically. i think that that is something worth looking out for sanctions. >> move to other questions. >> i'm a second year student. i wanted to ask you a little bit about what the purpose of sanctions are in the prospect of the regime change in russia. earlier you are mentioning that the point is to change behavior. if we ran both sanctions, maybe we would see a change. does anyone expect if we

increase at that putin will turn a new leaf and say, okay, maybe, maybe i was wrong. i will work with you. it does not seem likely. it seems like this will be the way that it is. is the point of sanctions really to undermine his rule and provide discontent? if that is the case, i think i think in russia, as you alluded to as well, they have this idea that any sort of protest is state department tested. sandoval needs that. it seems like our hands are kind of tied there. if the sanctions are really the best hope that they will undermine the rule, what are the prospects of that and what can we do without it? we are meddling in doing the same thing they did to us. >> short. thanks for that. designated an undesirable organization by russian authorities which will cause

some problems. its foundation has exposed massive corruption among officials. a free russian foundation. all of the organizations trying to do some good and help those democratic reform and liberalization. or anticorruption organizations. it is not our responsibility to do that. another friend thankfully survived two poisonings.

they change in regime. that is russians responsibility. i fully agree with that. i want to make life unpleasant and uncomfortable for putin and his cronies and those involved one way or another in the illegal annexation of crimea. interference in our election and other elections. and, so, as i said before, i do think there is evidence to suggest that russian forces stopped their assault because of the sanctions. it is a hard thing to prove, but i think think that there is evidence out there of that. the sanction regime that is in place from the europeans and americans and canadians and others, has not brought about a behavioral change in the sense of leading russian forces out. i actually think, putin, if, if he could, would like to end this

thing. i think he does not quite know how to get out. crimea is actually really costly for russia to maintain. they built this absurd bridge that has really shoddy construction. i would not be surprised if it fell into the sea. and then of course, they will blame the ukrainians as sabotage treatment of the people living in crime area is absolutely appalling. freedom house, an organization i used use to run, rates and assesses disputed regions separate from the countries. ukraine is assessed. crimea is done separately. government authorities don't have control and they should not be dinged, if you will, because of the horrible human rights situation. i would like to see more

sanctions. the option about swift is sometimes mentioned. this is the banking system that most countries use. the united states on its own does not have the ability to oppose swift sanctions that were imposed on iran and were pretty crippling. i always have been since russian baited ukraine, you have to ramp up sanctions periodically. otherwise they just adjust to the sanctions in place and there have not really been new sanctions over crimea in four years. resigning a couple weeks ago from his position. do you talk about what exactly he was doing in regards to u.s. policy and moving forward, what

are the implications of that position being vacated. >> in the interest of full disclosure, we work together at the state department. we have been friends since. my last place of employment here in washington before i migrated to miami. i think that kurt was the perfect person for that job. it was an unpaid position. he continued as the head of the institute. i think they could not have found a better person to do his best and trying to bring about a resolution to this conflict. he had not met with his russian counterparts in almost two years, i believe.

certainly not the decision maker on these things. the challenge i think he faced, facing this when she was a point person in the obama administration. the russian side just likes to sit in negotiate and talk. they never want to get to a conclusion or resolution of the crisis. they like to travel to various cities and meet, and ident with this when i was in the state department, i had the misfortune of being the misrepresentative and the 5+ to process. the biggest waste waste of time in my life. sit down with the russians and others to try to negotiate a resolution of that crisis. they were not interested. i think putin if he could, would like to get out. it is very unfortunate that the

position is vacant now. i have a little bit of trouble seeing who would want to take the position right now under the current circumstances. this is why this situation is so unfortunate. ukrainians, on a daily basis, are getting injured or killed in this conflict. not just from moscow, but from new york in the united states. pressure, domestically that he is facing. we need as much attention to focus on this as possible. we don't need these hearings about corruption in ukraine. it exists. i would be the first to acknowledge it. every ukrainian would be the first to acknowledge it. that, to me, is the wrong way to focus. the kremlin may as well hold those kinds of hearings.

that is how it plays. >> just a follow-up to that question. what do you think of the dilemma that the republicans faced with trump. do you think it was a good idea to join the administration knowing the difficulties of conducting diplomacy while trump is in the white house. >> i hold nothing against anyone who went into this administration out of a sense of duty, public service and interest and try to advance our national interest. i have always felt you need good people in these jobs and the alternative, if you will. i was never approached about joining. i was a bit of a critic of

mr. trump before he was elected. so, i did not have to face this dilemma or challenge. i am glad that some people have accepted it because problems will not wait around the world while we sort out our own domestic challenges and problems. you need people to address these things. you need them to feel that they have the support of their superiors. and that they can get things done. i certainly do not hold it against anyone who has joined, either still there or has gone in and left. i've got a fair number of friends who have been working this administration. having been at the state department for eight years i also have a number of friends in the service also doing their best on a daily basis to advance u.s. national interest. >> there was a handoff there.

>> economic finance program. my question is, what do you think that the u.s. and western allies can do in the short term to help. there are a lot of things that we can do in the long term, but what do you think we can actually do in the short term to help relieve some of this pressure that's on him. >> good question. justin pf and did not conclude the next assistance. helping him and his team. he has an impressive new government there. he is burning entirely new people in the government. for better or worse. it is a rather inexperienced government. helping ukraine get off the finish line i think is one of the mean short-term goals that we should have together.

redirecting the pressure. so that he does not feel that europe in the united states are looking at our watches wondering when will you wrap up this complex and we can get back to business as usual. and focusing our attention more on moscow to bring about a resolution of it. helping him with the fight against corruption. key tenets and political platform to root out the problem of corruption. to deal with it. he's got some challenges already. there have been questions raised about his chief of staff. and he needs backing from the international community to be able to push back on any efforts by these influences to make sure that we do not see ukraine flip back into a its old patterns. i would say helping him on

corruption. helping him on the conflict, of course. and with the imf. the imf one in particular is a short-term one that should be achievable with the support from the international community. >> we have time for one more question. yes, sir. >> hello. i am the u.s. correspondent for the english language newspaper. i would like to ask two things. one. speculating on president trump's motives. we can see one of his motives was to try to gain information that might undermine biden. do you think that it is another one of his themes that may be to

try and achieve something that he could present foreign policy success or achievement. bringing about some kind of peace. to kind of layoff what we've had in that field. i do not know whether you think i see people talking about ukraine, writing about ukraine, in a manner that they would not, about other countries. ukraine's territory and history and may be belonging somehow to russia's backyard seems to creep in and somehow, not with everybody, but with some people. well, maybe russia has a point.

president trump, in fact, said something along those lines about crimea. saying the russian speakers. russian speakers, pro- russian ethnic. still a lingering doubt. ukraine should be independent sovereign country. >> let me try the second question first. certainly lingering doubt in mr. before you got here, here, i referenced his comments to president bush that ukraine is not a real country. i don't think that there is doubt elsewhere in the international community. i sure hope not. otherwise, the international community agreed to accept the boundaries that came out in 1991.

emerging from that, ukraine played a critical role in the dissolution of the soviet union with belarus and russia. ukraine should be recognized. i don't think anyone is questioning ukraine's independence except for mr. putin, perhaps and people around him. a foreign policy success at ukraine's expense would not be a foreign policy success. i think the blowback from the congress, from the think tank, university community, everywhere , would be so severe that if the president tried to push some resolution that came at ukraine's expense -- i think that in order for it to be labeled a success, it cannot come at ukraine's expense. on crimea, turkey could make

some claims on crimea since until mid- 18 century. in 54, it was given to the ukrainians. socialist republic. acknowledgment of agreement of that. ninety-four and 97 with the russia ukraine friendship treaty it is only mr. putin and those like him that want to eat erase all of that and claim that crimea actually belongs to russia. if we allow that to happen, then we are losing. in my view, the international community should never recognize crimea as part of russia. we never recognize the baltics state exhortation into the soviet union. it took until 4+ decades later for those countries to not only become independent states and

formerly, officially regained their status, but down the road to become members of nato and the eu. if it takes four and a half decades, then so be it. i hope that it is a lot shorter than that. not a foreign policy in my view. >> i believe we have to stop here, david. thank you for your knowledge. you were not reading some of these extraordinarily important facts from your notes. >> not what it used to be. >> thank you very much. unless my memory is all wrong, and if you don't count russia as a european country, this little ukraine that everybody or too many people seem to dismiss is

the largest european country. it is a significant country. it is not some little, i do not want to damage your background. >> 's family comes from there. not hungry. it is not luxembourg. it is a significant country. the largest in europe. 45 million people. we have to take it seriously. you gave us a lesson on why we have to do that beyond its size. we are very grateful to you. thank you so much. [applause] .... ....

>>. [inaudible conversation]

>> inaudible conversation] >>. [inaudible conversation]

>> happening in the middle east, turkey has launched a military operation in northeastern syria against kurdish fighters . after president from old us troops from the area. the white house released this statement from the president, it reads in part this morning turkey, a nato member invaded syria. the united states does not endorse this attack and has made clear to turkey this operation is a bad idea. president trump goes on to

say there are no american soldiers in the area. some reaction from congress from the top democrat on the senate foreign relations committee, bob menendez. today is a dark day,american soldiers worked tirelessly to train and fight alongside the kurds against isis. now president trump is leaving our allies to die at the hands of the turkish military . the president has brought great shame to our country again. republican susan collins is on monday resident trumps decision to abandon the kurds, our major ally was unwise. today we are seeing the consequences of that terrible decision. if the reports of turkish strikes in syria are accurate i fear for our allies, the kurds could be slaughtered. and from kentucky republican senator rand paul, i know this president trump is the first president in my lifetime to understand what is our national interest and what is not. he's stopping endless wars and we will be stronger as a result. cheney, graham neocon war caucus has cost us too much

fighting endless wars. >> this afternoon irish ambassador to the us daniel mulhall talks about breaks it . ireland is remaining in the european union while the united kingdom which includes northern ireland is leaving. the irish ambassador joins the discussion on the future of uk us relations. live 3:40 p.m. eastern on cspan2, also live online at c-span.org listen live on the free c-span radio. weeknights we are featuring tv programs showcasing what's available every weekend on cspan2 area tonight theme is science and technology. scientists and entrepreneur gary marcus weighs in on the state of artificial intelligence and the future. thomas malone founding director of the mit center for collective intelligence discusses the work being done on ai. and columbia university psychiatry professor kelly harding explores a between mental and physical health.

it begins at 8 pm eastern. >> c-span campaign 20/20 coverage continues as president trump josc keep america great rally in minneapolis, live thursday at 8 pm on c-span. once anytime at c-span.org and listen free wherever you are using the free radio q and a. >> thinking about participating in student cams 20/20 competition but you've never made a documentary film ? no problem. we have resources on our website to help you get started. check out our getting started and downloads pages on studentcams.org and video links to footage and a c-span library. teachers will find resources on the teacher's materials page to help you introduce cams to your students. >> anyone that wants to complete this year, it's a fine topic that you're

passionate about and pursue it as much as we can. >> we are asking middle and high school students tocreate a short documentary on the issue you would like the presidential candidates to address during the 2020 campaign. c-span will award $100,000 in cash prizes plus a $5000 grand prize . >> go get a camera, get a microphone and start holding . >> this visit studentcams.org for more info. >> new shipping channels are opening up due to ice melting and oceans. retired admiral john richardson served as chief of naval operations talked about how maritime security is changing due to the ice melts. the center for strategic and international studies hosted this forum with climate and foreign policy experts. we begin with a panel on the