So, ladies and gentlemen, let me welcome you to the United States Institute of Peace. We are here today to remember. We are here today to remember events. In particular, we're here today to remember events in Crimea five years ago. But this is not the only thing that we should be remembering. We should remember that this is also, this year is the 75th anniversary of Stalin's deportation of Crimean Tatars from their homeland. We should remember that this is the 79th anniversary of the Wells Declaration, that everyone in this room remembers the United States said we would never accept the illegal annexation of the Baltics. This is the 81st anniversary of Germany's invasion, illegal annexation of Austria. These events challenged the world order that we have come to expect. In particular, five years ago, the invasion, illegal invasion of Crimea violated the world order that had kept the peace in Europe among major powers for 70 years. So this is an important opportunity to remember. Today we'll have an opportunity to listen to speakers who have lived these events. And then we'll have an opportunity to have a conversation among analysts and thinkers and former officials of these events. And we'll have an opportunity for you to ask questions and remind us of yours as well. So let me again, as the Executive Vice President here at the Institute of Peace, Bill Taylor, I'm welcoming you, but Ambassador Charlie, the Ukraine Ambassador here in the United States, will also welcome you, Ambassador Charlie, please take the stage. Excellencies, moderators and panelists, ladies and gentlemen, it's my great pleasure to welcome you to this very important event, and I would say very timely event. Today, these days, five years ago, my country was occupied by a neighboring country, and I just, some emotion about that, we, you will not predict that France can be enemies, as now Russian leadership describe Ukraine. I wanted to express my deepest appreciation to Ambassador William Taylor, Executive Vice President of the US Institute of Peace and Ambassador John Herbst, Atlantic Council for tonight at this event. And my sincere gratitude for two hour panelists for taking time out from their busy schedule and grass in today meeting. We really appreciate that, we understand how important and how, now agenda, internal agenda in the United States, but keeping focus on Ukraine is the right thing, because you know that since February 2014, Ukraine, a founding member of the United Nations has been facing Russian military aggression. As a result of these hostile actions, part of the sovereign territory of Ukraine, the autonomous Republic of Crimea remain under temporary foreign occupation in violation of the charter of the United Nations. And all our delegation that's come, and by the way, I am happy that we have a big delegation from Crimea, from Ukraine and from United States. We remember that it's not only about Crimea and the Tars, not about Ukraine, it's about international order. And these five years, we hear many times from Russia, beginning from Greenmans, and after that there's no occupation, it's referendum in Crimea. But finally, the day before yesterday, who's checked this Russian activity and President Putin activity, Axionov mentioned that Putin, president of Russia, of the Russian Federation orchestrated this special operation. That's it. So, very openly, everything confronts. Finally, we understand how this happened. And as you are aware, the cease-cremia now has become a territory for violation of human rights and peninsula, the fact that becomes a hotspot, not only in the sense that it is legally annexed, but that is a threat of European security in the Black Sea region and much wider. The number of troops that Russia has deployed in the occupied Crimea exceeds even the level of the Soviet military presence on the peninsula. When the head of leader of major list, Mustafa Jimiilov, mentioned here two years ago that Russian plan to deploy nuclear weapons in peninsula, frankly, I didn't trust it. But now we know that they fully prepared for that. And that's another threat for global international order, for security in Black Sea region. It's about not about only Black Sea region, new situation, very vulnerable situation, because many countries in the region really concern about the future development and Russian behavior. Russia still use military forces like a final argument. And that's not the right way how to restore peace and how to work in the 21st century. Our response should be and must be the multinational response. We are grateful to our partners for their strong support of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine for their unity and solidarity with us, including sanctions policy. The Crimea declaration released by Secretary Pompeo on 24th July 2018 is an example of strategic partnership between the two states. I really appreciate all the team, not only in State Department and all the agencies who support, strongly support such a position. And I also appreciate position of the countries of the world, ambassadors, many of this country here for strong support of that absolutely right according to international law position. We applaud the U.S. resolve in urging the Russian Federation to respect international law and restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine. We are also deeply grateful to the United States for its practical assistance in countering Russia's aggressions against Ukraine. Let me once again express my gratitude to all of you, ladies and gentlemen, and especially panelists once again and all participants for your involvement and contribution to the discussion today. In conclusion, let me reiterate my sincere hope that this event will result in success and soon we will witness our long-term goal, the occupation of Crimea, releasing political prisoners and restoring the global international order. Without releasing our 24 guys who are now prisoners of war, can you imagine, 21st century, two countries live together in a very good relationship for a long time and now we have prisoners of war. You can imagine that. So we need your support. We will fight. We will fight for our freedom. We will fight for our sovereignty. We will fight together with Crimean Tatars. They will not undermine us inside the country during the election. They will not prevail because we have strong army. We have very motivated people and for sure we will bring back Crimea in the future. But now we need to be united because without our unity you will face this behavior, this aggressive behavior and this attack around the globe, especially in Europe, a very important region for all of our country. And now I have a privilege to introduce Amin Jayparov, the Deputy Minister of Information Policy of Ukraine, who has just come from Kiev to join us today. And also to Deputy Heads of Medjlis, Crimean Tatars leadership, Mr. Chigos, and we will hear from them. And finally, I wanted to say that I will not go in details. I think they will provide you the very fresh information and their perception of the situation. And now I would like to ask the First Deputy Minister of Information Policy to take the floor. Amin, the floor is yours. And I thank you. Khairlessa Balar, Saygular Khadeshlar. This is the way how we greet each other in a Crimean Tatar language, which means good morning, dear friends, dear ladies and gentlemen, excellencies and visitors. It's a really great honor and pleasure for me to stand up here and to speak in front of you, not only in the capacity of the First Deputy Minister. But mainly as the active participant of the resistance that we had five years ago. It's always emotionally difficult to speak about something that you're emotionally attached to. And as a former journalist, being at the very core of that events happened five years ago, I want to share as, let's say, the first intervention, a very personal story of mine that happened five years ago, the very day of the so-called fake referendum 16th of March, when in the room where the representatives of the so-called Election Commission were speaking up and delivering the numbers of the results of the so-called vote, and there was a very, the room was overcrowded. It was full of many foreign journalists, cameramen, tripods, experts, observers. And there was a very tiny pass, narrow pass to the scene where the results have been vocalling, and a huge man with the T-shirt inscripted Russia came up to that very pass, put his tripod, his camera on the top and started filming. And a foreign journalist, barely speaking Russian, came up to him and kindly requested him to move a little bit aside so that he would not block the pass. And the response of that huge man was very blunt and rude. He said, this is my country now. And don't you dare to tell me where should I or should not put my camera and film? And I was just in a mirror behind, silently witnessing that episode, you know, and kind of in that very moment, I realized what actually happened to my homeland, Crimea, and how Russia would act in Crimea, and I was not mistaken. Because the reality that is being demonstrated as a rosy life, happily ever after within Russian reality, is the fake. And I'd like to also, and I'm very happy that we're going to have the speakers from Crimea, like Nadya Manjulalov, he's the deputy head of Mejlis, he lives in Crimea, he's the very voice of that resistance, and he will bring the very fresh information, he's the first-hand source information about what Crimea is today. And actually the questions that I started to ask myself as finding Crimea to be the very litmus paper of the world's helplessness on how to stop the Russian aggression five years ago, and I'm still asking myself, why the country that has been bringing destruction to the whole world, you know, performing Syria in war, starting the war in Donbas, occupying illegally Crimea, performing Salisbury chemical weapon testing, downing MH17 with almost 300 passengers on the board is still believed to negotiate. So I believe that we're still dancing a tango with an aggressor, and I believe that the UN Security Council permanent member cannot act like a terrorist state, and unfortunately we have to admit that this country is not the country that it used to be. The regime that is there is something that actually violates the very principle of international order, democracy, human rights, and many more. So just as I'd like to share what Crimea is today in numbers, I would now go into details, but I will give you just some simple few numbers. And they are thorny in that rosy picture of beautiful life. 44,000 square kilometers, 7% of Ukraine's territory is under occupation. Russian aggression has left 13,000 people killed, and more than 28,000 people wounded. 1.5 million, like myself, IDPs, eternally displaced persons lost their homes. 87,000 military personnel of Russian armed forces are displaced along the Ukrainian border. Only in Crimea, Russia has deployed up to 32.5,000 military personnel. 88 artillery system, 52 multiple launch rocket system, 372 armored combat vehicles, 113 war planes, 62 combat helicopters, as well as six combat ships and six submarine ships equipped with sea launch cruise missile caliber, and this is much more than the military potential of many European countries. Eight conscription campaigns since spring 2015 held Crimea with a bit less than 15,000 Ukrainian citizens illegally went through the military service of Russian armed forces. The Sea of Azov has in fact turned into the inner lake of Russian Federation. 22 detained Ukrainian sailors are the physical evidence of the security threat in Black Sea and Sea of Azov. By occupying Crimea, Russia has violated 407 bilateral and 80 multilateral agreements with Russia. Only 318 children attend Ukrainian classes in Russian schools instead of almost 13,000 children in seven Ukrainian schools before 2014. Almost 80 Ukrainian citizens are imprisoned. 130 children are raised without their fathers. Freedom House reports freedom of speech index in Crimea has fallen to one of the lowest in the world since 2014. Nineteen four points out of 100 point scale where 100 is the worst index. 2.5 million of Ukrainian citizens in Crimea and more than 80,000 of Ukrainian citizens in thousand Harrison region lost access to TV and radio signal. Russia has been illegally using Ukrainian TV and radio frequencies to broadcast its propaganda and to create this beautiful life. So if you're an average person and even if you travel to Crimea today, I know that you will perhaps be impressed by the actively built-up infrastructure, the very physical symbol of the Russian reunite, the Kerch Bridge. You will see the build-up airport, hospital, prison, the roads, but actually another reality in that kingdom of distorted mirrors that is about being canned, being scared to talk is something that you may perhaps not feel even if you spent a week or two in Crimea. Another issue I'd like to speak a little bit is why Crimean terrors are actually the bone in the throat of the occupation and why are they today disproportionately repressed in Crimea. It's not because they were one of the most vocal voice of the resistance in 2014, not only because they boycorted the very referendum in March 2016, not only because they raised and coordinated the pro-Ukrainian realists in Simferopol and throughout Crimea, but also because there is this history. Perhaps all of you know this, the biggest narrative of Russian propaganda that Crimea is the native land of Russia.  I remember my story when I was a seven-year-old child. I attended the very core of the Crimean terror culture, the Hans Pellers, which is in Bakhchusaray, which is today by the way under the facade of reconstruction is being destroyed. And we spent one and a half hour we're attending different rooms of Hans Pellers and a Russian language, a Russian speaking guide.  And as a child, I surprisingly asked my parents after I said, oh, are we going to hear something about Crimean terrors? So this is actually this huge false history of Russian propaganda, that there is a Greek period of Russian history and the Russian history and nothing in between. So they prefer not to speak about Crimean terror culture, about the Crimean terror caganate. And the thing is that actually started 300 years ago. The repression of Crimean terror people as indigenous people is with the first annexation that happened in 1783, when Catherine II annexed Crimea, and all Crimean terrors who were not ready to bow and to accept Russia, and there were so many, they were repressed or exiled. Within 100 years after almost one-third of Crimean terror indigenous population, they had to migrate. So they mostly left Crimea to Ottoman Empire, current Turkish Republic today. The second pillar of that destroy or genocide happened in 1944, 18th of March, when Crimean terror men were fighting within the Red Army and Crimean terror seniors, children and women, they were put in the cattle shed wagons and exiled to mostly Uzbekistan. And this was an act of genocide, because 42.7% of Crimean terrors they died in exile or a couple of years after the exile. And this actually brought Crimean terrors to the very risk of physical existence. And there was this whole period of Soviet reality when Crimean terrors were resistant to the Soviet regime, when many of Crimean terrors were put in the prison just because they wanted to have their right to return home, which was possible only after the independence of Ukraine. And in 2014, this whole story repeat, and of course Crimean terrors, by the very effect of their history, could not support Russian reality. And that's why this is exactly why they started and became the most and at most vocal voice of resistance. And of course, the final question I want to raise is what more should be done? What could we do? Of course, and I'd like to share and I'd like to actually think on behalf of the Ukrainian government, the U.S., the civil society, the government for the huge and immense support that we have, the financial support of the Ukrainian army, the support of the reforms that we have. I know it's quite difficult and I really want to assure you that my country is doing its best to perform better reforms. I know it's quite tough. I know that we have the biggest challenge to fight corruption. But I think that the generation of mine, and this is something that was not possible by the way before 2014, the appointment of Crimean Tara Young Woman as the first deputy minister in the Ukrainian government, also as a criteria of that my country has been changing. And I believe that we also have to be more proactive because if we speak about Crimea, it's like radiation, you know, it's a cognitive war that we have, even though there is no military actions within Crimea. But it's something that they are trying to show the fair reality about that people are happy with Russia, that the whole international community is okay and accepted the Russian occupation. So they're trying to, let's say, involve people into the acceptance of the very fact of Russian reality. And in this regard, I think we have to start thinking of the de-occupation formula, even though I know it's a long way, if it goes to the international justice and order, we will not get Crimea back that fast as we wanted. But we have to create the platform that would keep Crimean issue on the very high political agenda and thus information agenda. Because of course, we had the peak of the Crimean issue on the international information space in 2014 and 15, and now it slips a little bit down. So we have to think of having this Crimean issue on the top of the agenda of not being normalized by the issue of Crimean occupation and its consequences. And I know that it's something that we may actually start thinking of. And at the end, the final quotation I'd like to share is Lewis Carroll's Red Queen. She says, my dear, here we must run as fast as we can just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere, you must run twice as fast as that. So I think that this is something that we have to think over. We have to run twice as fast as we can. Thank you very much, Sir Holness. And the following speaker is Nariman Jolialov, who is the Deputy Head of Majlis. It's a self-governing body of Crimean terrorists, which was banned by the Russian Federation, by the Supreme Court in 2016. So he is actually the one, the most active coordinator of that civil resistance in Crimea today. Please, Nariman Jolialov, you're welcome. Good day, dear guests. I will speak in Russian, unfortunately. I'm very glad that you have invited me, Mr. Taylor. You invited me here to tell you what is actually happening in the Crimea. And I can tell you with all surety that the picture that Russian propaganda shows to you and the entire world does not match at all the real situation existing in the occupied Crimea occupied by the Russian Federation. Indeed, virtually a few days ago, Russia celebrated the fifth anniversary of occupation of my motherland. And very many Russian, Ukrainian, and foreign journalists came to Crimea to see what has changed, had changed over the five years. And I personally had to demonstrate to many of them what the real situation is. In order to demonstrate slightly this picture, I will tell you of one, I will give you one case about two years ago, an American radio journalist, Lucian Kim, came from Moscow to the Crimea. And before meeting me, he tried to communicate with the citizens of Crimea, residents of Crimea, and public, open place and asked them what changes they have noticed over the few past years without any limitations of how negative or positive they would be. Then when he came to talk to me, he was very irritated, because he said, you know, Nuriman, I could not get a single answer from them. Not one single person when talking to me either praised or cursed the events. It's to show you what stands behind the beautiful facade, the infrastructure project that Russian Federation likes to boast of the airport's schools and other. For us, Crimean Tartars, they are in building a cathedral in Moscow in St. Petersburg. But terrible, terrible things are hidden behind those announcements and pictures, maybe not so many deaths, but each of them is a value. It's been a few years since a friend of mine who would have celebrated his 33rd year today, a young Crimean Tartar, who was a brutally kidnapped in St. Feropol, and nobody, neither his friends nor his parents, knows anything about his further fate. There is no investigation of kidnappings and the deaths of activists in the Crimea. We have no idea of whether these people are still alive or not. A lot of searches, criminal prosecution and trials, which are not really trials of justice. You can talk to any lawyer working in the Crimea now, and he will tell you that the Russian Federation and Russian judges brutally violate their own laws, and the situation with the detained Ukrainian sailors is another proof of that. Constant ignoring, constant ignoring of their own law is a fact, and the most appalling fact is that in the Crimea, currently the Russian Federation uses any available means to make people live in constant fear. People are learning to live in a situation of no freedom. You can see the situation in Russia. In general, you can see the newly introduced laws which are mass produced by the Russian Federation. They are all aimed at limiting the human freedoms that the Russian Federation is assigned on for. And Russia continues to deceive the international community in all international forums, including the United Nations, which is the top level. And the reality that we're faced with today is really appalling. I would like for you to really make note of it, because we, the residents of the Crimea, and in particular Crimean Tatars, we live not because of what we have in the fridges or what is built by the Russian Federation in the Crimea. Currently, we live based on the basic freedoms that justice and whether we can argue against what we don't like. And we don't like the basics. And please, when you analyze the situation in Ukraine and Crimea, when you calculate the cases of human rights violations in the territory of occupied Crimea, please keep in mind that these are consequences of the main crime committed in the February of 2014, the occupation of a territory of sovereign state. And therefore, we, despite all the threats and the personal threats that we are experiencing currently in the Crimea, we speak openly that we are for the restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, because we believe this a necessary condition of stability, not only in our region, but also in the entire world. We believe that this is the must for the peaceful development around the world. And we see this as the basis for our foundation of our own security, because the politics that is imposed on us by the Russian Federation does not correspond to these conditions. Therefore, I call on all of you to do what you can and also would like to thank the United States and many European countries for their very clear and principle position. Do not think that what you do does not matter for the Russian Federation, but I'm calling you to show even more adherence to principles, to be even more active in order to save tens and hundreds of lives, tens of hundreds of people who live on the occupied territories and save Russia itself from where it is being led to by its own leadership, because we hear more and more voices saying that the residents of the Crimea who have fallen victims to propaganda and deceit, they are beginning to say that this is not at all what they were expecting. And the Russian authorities are trying to shut them up using different means by finding them, by prosecuting them and using many other methods. And therefore you can see for yourselves that even those who were very strongly in favor of Russia, of Crimea, of the Crimea joining Russia, are now saying that they were deceived, that it's not what they expected. But there are also very many people who from the very start realized where this all was going to and they asked me to deliver it all to you. And it's very important that you understand what's happening. I can give you many numbers, I can give you statistics, but what is important is that every act, every legal act constitutes an international crime and is important despite of how tragic it may be viewed. I am very grateful for your interest. I would be happy to answer all your questions and I call on you to keep the Crimea and the fate of the Crimean Tatars in mind and do all you can to fix the situation and realize that despite of all the statements of Russian propaganda, there is resistance in the Crimean, nonviolent, peaceful resistance going by the international legislation. And we keep saying the truth, including to you. Thank you very much. A colleague of mine, a friend of mine actually called upon the international community to keep on with the non-acceptance, non-recognition policy. There is one important thing I really want you to understand that this non-recognition policy, all the declarations, resolutions, documents that we adopt or accept within different organizations, Council of Europe, United Nations, OSCE or on the bilateral level, it really saves lives because otherwise we could have not 80 political prisoners in Crimea, but 800 or even more. So I think that this is something that we really have to keep on doing and I'm really thankful that this is something that is happening today. And the next speaker is Akhtemchegos, who actually spent two years in the Russian prison in Crimea. He was detained in 2015 and today he is also, he was released as the result of the direct negotiations of the President of the Turkish Republic and President Putin. And he is more than a year today in Kyiv being a voice of the Crimean resistance. Akhtemchegos. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm grateful for the invitation that our delegation received. For us, it is very important when we are speaking on behalf of our citizens living currently in the occupied territory, each forum, international forum of such kind is monitored by every Crimean citizen and every Ukrainian citizen because the concentration of attention to the plight that occurred to us in this horrible Nazi form such as the occupation, attack and occupation by Russia of the Ukrainian territory. People are looking forward to the retaliation by the world and every step that the world takes to protect us from this Russian monster gives us hope that we will be able to get rid of the occupants and continue our peaceful and free life side by side with you. So the statements by the Russian officials to the fact that Crimea is Russia and it's not to be discussed is a challenge to all of us and to the entire world. It's a demonstration of the fact that these Crimeans do not want to pay for their crimes. It is difficult to speak about Crimea without thinking about hundreds of thousands of people whose lives were broken about the orphans, fatherless orphans, but as Nariman Jalal said, resistance goes on and it will not subside despite the attempt of Russia to pose, to make the Crimea look appealing, the attempt is failing. Five years has been five years. How many political events Russia has tried to conduct in the Crimean territory and thus make the world community think of it as Russian territory. I'm talking about the so-called elections that Russia has been trying to conduct all these years. They're illegal elections and the majority of Ukrainian citizens living in the occupied territory do not take part in these processes. This is the most painful kind of resistance for the Russian banded authorities and they're trying to, they're using all these forms of terror as revenge. A colleague of mine mentioned multiple searches. Those are not searches. You know, it is characteristic for Russia to make things look different. How can you say that the bandits wearing masks at five in the morning, breaking to your house, throwing men on the floor and you're using their boots? How can you call this a search without demonstrating any sort of legal authority? This is done to intimidate us so that we all would understand that any attempt to fight for our lives and the right to choose your future will be punished in this manner. Today, Russia is not stopping its attempt to change our country, Ukraine, and turn it back into Russian slavery. We are going to have very complicated difficult elections, but they will not be a hindrance for us because we paid in 2014 with the blood of our children for our freedom. And where there's no going back, Russia is aware of that and by undertaking the symbolic actions, the invented myths, mythology. Russia is trying to intervene in the right of Ukrainian people to choose as well in the same manner as Russia is trying to do that all around the world, as we all know. But Russia is a very symbolic neighbor for the Ukraine, trying to recreate the former empire, empire that will not leave the world alone in peace. We will walk this path because hundreds of thousands of our citizens living in occupied territories have made their choice, even though they cannot vote. They delegated their right to express their choice to the Ukrainian people. This is the right to live in the European community, the right to be in the Union called Euro-Atlantic Union and is a guarantor of future security. The alliance that is a foundation of the future civilized world and Russia, which is afraid of that, will do what it can, including continue spilling our blood in our territory. And that's the challenge that Russia is posing before the world depends on all of you. Will there be voices to the effect that dialogue with Russia should be continued, that the military aggression in the Azov region should not be taken into consideration, should sanctions regime be continued, while major business projects are being signed like the Northern Stream too? Will you continue to believe that Russia must come to terms with all these things result in deaths, multiple deaths in our territory?   They do not deserve to be under such severe occupation and have no future. I strongly hope that such resolutions, resolutions of the kind that was adopted a few days ago and the forefront of the fifth anniversary of the occupation will continue and every next step will be stronger and more forceful to demonstrate that the world is united against the Nazi Putin. Thank you. Powerful statements, clear indication of what's at stake and what's going on in Crimea. Deputy Minister, thank you. It's now my pleasure to ask Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent to address the group. George, in my view, is one of the best diplomats that the State Department has. We've worked together on several occasions and I've learned incredible amounts. You're about to learn incredible amount from him as well. He has personal connections to this issue, which he will describe. I referenced early the Wells Declaration of 1940. Well, there was a Pompeo Declaration more recently, which is probably authored by someone in this room, whom you're about to hear. And so George, please come to think. Thank you, Bill, my former boss. Good morning. Secretary of State Pompeo made that declaration as U.S. policy before Congress last July. He repeated our position again from Hanoi on February 27th on the fifth anniversary of the takeover of the Crimean Parliament by Russia Special Forces, stating Russia attempted to upend the international order, undermined basic human freedoms, and weakened our common security. The United States reiterates its unwavering position. Crimea is Ukraine and must be returned to Ukraine's control. As Bill has said several times, the Crimea Declaration consciously harkens back to the 1940 Wells Declaration, when Secretary of State Sumner Wells declared that the U.S. would not recognize the de facto occupation and control of the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania by Stalin's Soviet Union after the perfidy of the Molotov-Ribbanshov pack. Now, as Bill has suggested in his intro, historical precedent is very relevant to the challenge that faces all of us. In the spirit of Russian Tsars, Yvonne IV, Peter, Catherine, and Stalin, current Russian President Putin clearly consciously styles himself a gatherer of what he sees as Russian lands, or Ruskimir, regardless of international laws, norms, or the views of neighboring countries. In so doing, Putin has rejected the rules of the game that Soviet leader agreed to in 1975 in the Helsinki Final Act, that the final Soviet leader Gorbachev reaffirmed in the 1990 Paris Charter. And in a specific Ukrainian context, the first Russian President Yeltsin embraced in the 1994 Budapest memorandum. Five years later, we the international community struggle for adequate responses to the aggression of a revisionist power with a veto on the UN Security Council, willing to use force to seize the territory of another country for the first time since the Second World War and the founding of the United Nations. Current Crimean Gowlater Aksyanov, whose criminal name was the Goblin before he became Moscow's willing tool and misrule in 2014, last week, as one of the previous speakers said, Ambassador Chaly, acknowledged publicly what was clear five years ago. The Russian takeover of Crimea would not have occurred without Putin's direction in order. To repeat what some of our colleagues have already said, Russia illegally seized and occupied Crimea, blatantly contravening a core international principle that no country can change the borders of another by force. It manufactured the appearance of a farce of a process on March 16th that is mistakenly referred to as a referendum and simply made up numbers for reported voter participation results, generously claiming, for instance, that 120 percent of Sevastopol's population, that would be every man, woman, child, plus 20 percent, had voted. And then they brazenly struck a Crimean campaign medal for Russian military participants, which listed the start of the campaign as February 20th. A day before, three European foreign ministers and a Russian envoy were still in Kiev negotiating a deal to keep discredited Ukrainian President Yanukovych in office through December 2014 in early elections. Ambassador Herbst asked me to comment about why the U.S. government did not comment yesterday on the anniversary of a Duma vote. We didn't comment because such a vote has no legitimacy. Weeks after the Russian special forces consolidated control in Crimea, Russian agents such as Gierkin Strelkov, who would run a torture operation in Crimea against civil society activists, reappeared in the Donbas, in towns that most of us honestly had never heard of since then. Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Horlivka. Russian special forces, not tractor drivers and miners, took precision action to seize the administrative buildings in Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia manufactured and continues to fuel a war that has led to 13,000 deaths in the last five years in Europe. In Crimea and the Donbas for the past five years, Russia has undermined regional stability, flagrantly disregarded international norms, created Europe's largest humanitarian crisis in a generation, and violated human rights on a systemic basis. In his Crimea statement last month, Secretary Pompeo underscored that the United States remains gravely concerned by the worsening repression by Russia's occupation regime in Crimea. As part of this campaign, Russia has arbitrarily detained and wrongfully convicted individuals for peaceful opposition to the occupation, and in some cases has forcibly transferred these individuals from occupied Crimea to Russia." In that regard, it is a great honor personally to appear on the stage after Akhtemchikos. As a deputy leader of the Crimean Tatar Medjolis, he served time as we heard in Russian jails of political prisoner. I remember we first met in Kiev at the Turkish National Day reception the week after he had been released.  Ten days ago I was in Kiev and I had dinner with Akhtem and Mustafa and MNA and some other Crimean Tatar community leaders, and the two of them, Akhtem and Mustafa Jamilov, swapped prison and gulag stories with very rye sensors of humor that clearly had helped both of them through psychological and physical pressure that would have broken, and unfortunately in the past did break lesser men. Jamilov assessed, as you heard from Nariman, that the repression now in Crimea is worse than in the late Soviet period when he, Jamilov, was a prisoner of conscience in the gulag. Despite its OSCE obligations, Russia currently imprisons more than 70 Ukrainian political prisoners, and the majority of those are Crimeans. Once again, we are maintaining lists of the Kremlin's political prisoners. That was my responsibility in the summer of 1988 as an unpaid summer intern on the State Department's Soviet desk. Back then, U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Shevronadze would meet every quarter and review the list, clarifying the status and pushing for the release of political prisoners. It is sad commentary that 31 years later after those Schultz-Shevronadze sessions conducted in a shared spirit of dialogue and OSCE principles, that Russian leaders show disdain and indifference and are adding additional names rather than meeting their international obligations and freeing prisoners of conscience. For our part, we must not forget, and we must continue to speak the names of those unjustly imprisoned aloud. Sensov Bakirov, Baluch, Zetulaev, and many, many more, we must all push Moscow for their release, calling them to cease their abuses immediately, end the occupation, and in the meantime, comply with obligations under international law, including the law of occupation. Russia's aggression in Crimea has also included systemic disinformation and erosion of the concept of truth, or as Peter Pomeransev memorable equipped, nothing is true and everything is possible. Russian special forces were branded slyly as little green men or polite people, even though they were neither. Manufactured, made-up results are labeled a referendum.  I think MNA addressed that already, but no, it wasn't. Pontic Greeks were well established in Crimea 1500 years before Muscovy emerged from the northern forests a thousand years ago. The Greeks in Crimea worked with the Scythians to create the amazing gold ornaments currently being contested in Dutch courts and which eventually should be returned to Ukraine. And they were deported in 1944 by Stalin and the NKVD along with Crimean Tatars, Bogars, Armenians and other indigenous communities who were their centuries before Catherine II violated her treaty with the Ottoman Empire, guaranteeing Crimean independence and first seized it for the Russian Empire, as MNA already pointed out. We all collectively must constantly reject such Russian falsehoods and reiterate truths of what is happening in Crimea, in the Donbas and in Russia itself. Five years on, the challenge is not restricted merely to Crimea and the Donbas, with Russia de facto controlling 7% of Ukrainian territory, just as it has controlled 20% of Georgian territory since 2008. What Western experts have dubbed hybrid war, not a doctrinal term used by Russians, it probably is worth noting, has led to a full spectrum of aggression on display in Ukraine the last five years. Conventional war, Special Forces war, dirty acts of assassination and bombings, cyber attacks, disinformation, the weaponization of energy, as well as more traditional economic, political and diplomatic pressures. Similar tactics have been employed elsewhere in Europe, from the Baltics to the Balkans, think of the foiled coup in Montenegro in October 2016 and beyond. Our collective need to counter such Russian malign influence and to be prepared to do so over the long haul should be clear. Over the last five years, the U.S. has been steadfast in our support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, including territorial waters. We will not accept anything less than the full restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity. The Crimea Declaration and the subsequent show of support from partners are clear signals of the permanence of the international community's commitment to Ukraine's territorial integrity. The United States will continue to engage in private and public diplomacy, levy sanctions such as those announced Friday in concert with EU and Canadian allies against Russian individuals and companies associated with aggression and occupation in Crimea, and provide security assistance to Ukraine to ensure that Russia pays a price for these actions. The unified message from the U.S. allies and partners has been clear, Russia's ongoing efforts to destabilize Ukraine will not go unanswered. Those named on Friday include individuals who orchestrated the unjustified November 25th attack on three Ukrainian vessels near the Kurch Strait, six Russian defense firms that appropriated Ukrainian property and occupied Crimea, and two individuals involved in last November's sham so-called elections in Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, if we're being honest with ourselves, the modest steps to date have not been enough to change Putin's cost calculus. That is very clear. Russia pressure on commercial shipping in the Sea of Azov as well as freedom of navigation in the Black Sea and through the Kurch Strait is a deeply worrying trend, so we will all need to be ready to keep our resolve for the long term and consider additional measures. The U.S. has provided other support for Ukraine over the past five years, including over $2.9 billion of assistance and $3.1 billion sovereign loan guarantees. Appropriators in Congress continue to increase levels of assistance for Ukraine year after year. Our assistance includes programs to strengthen resilience and counter Russian malign influence in the media, on the ground in the Donbas, and on the seas around Crimea. We will maintain the support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russian aggression. We will continue to stand with the people of Ukraine, including those in Crimea, as they seek a stable, prosperous, democratic, and free Ukraine. In the meantime, it is also crucial that Ukraine do everything possible to strengthen its democracy and resilience against Russian aggression. Ukraine's election this year, which has been referenced several times, starts in less than two weeks, and it will be a crucial test of its democratic process. The conduct of free and fair elections without harassment of civil society, campaign staff, or media is a standard that should not need to be repeated at this point. MNA and several of the other speakers mentioned internally displaced peoples. Ukrainian officials also need to do what is necessary to ensure the rights of the tens of thousands of internally displaced peoples from Crimea and more than a million from the Donbas. Those living under occupation, or who have temporarily fled repression and occupation, have the right and expectation to be treated as full citizens in Ukraine. All Ukrainians, including Crimeans, also have the right to expect institutions with integrity and accountability, with corruption minimized, and justice for all. Here again, despite recent setbacks and controversies, the United States stands ready to do its part in support of the shared vision of a prosperous, secure, and accountable Ukraine. Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming elections, our commitment to Ukraine and its people will remain unwavering. The United States will continue to stand with the people of Ukraine as they build a strong, successful democratic country, one that eventually sees its borders and territories, including Crimea, fully restored. So, to conclude where I started. George, thank you very much. Nice, very nicely done. Ambassador John Herbst is now going to lead his panel, very distinguished panel, I will say. Andrew, come over here. Toria Nuland, Heather Conley, and Vice-President, come up and join us. John will lead the panel through a discussion, probably have a couple of questions. Look forward to your questions. This has been so far a great opportunity to have this conversation. George, thank you very much, very nicely done. John, over to you. That was a tough act to follow, but we've got a great act coming up. We've got three world-class experts here to walk us through what's going on in Crimea. Let me just mention one thing before we start. The title of this event is, you know, Crimea, the occupation of Crimea, and its relationship to world order. George, who's always very good, gave us part of the answer to that, which is that what we're seeing in Crimea, and for that matter in Dunbas, reflects imperial revisionist ambitions of the Kremlin, which do not end in Ukraine. And yesterday, I had the experience, and I choose that now and carefully, of appearing on a C1 TV show called The Great Game, which has, as its moderators, Dmitry Symes, who is at the studio here in Washington, where I joined him, and Vyacheslav Nikodov, who I believe is the grandson of Molotov, which is relevant to his approach to international affairs. But, of course, this program, which had four speakers who were defending Kremlin policy and me, not quite adequately, offering a counterpoint, was devoted to the, quote, unquote, great Russian victory in Crimea. During the course of the exchange, one of the four, essentially spewing the Kremlin line, Andrenik Migranian, made the mistake in responding to me, of saying, actually not responding to me, excuse me, just in passing, that, well, you know, at the time of the fall of the Soviet Union, at the Belovia-Japusha, which were the agreements which led to the demise of the Soviet Union, many territories escaped from Moscow's control. So that was the one opening I really had, and I jumped on it and said, you know, Mr. Migranian pointed out why the Kremlin aggression in Ukraine is so important to the West and to the United States. One, Ukraine itself is of importance, but two, it doesn't end in Donbass. Moscow's imperial ambitions go well beyond that, and that's precisely the point, which is why the United States has a vital stake in helping Ukraine deal with Kremlin aggression, but stop them where they're fighting in Donbass so they don't move elsewhere. And with that, let's turn to our panel. Andrew, I'd like to start with you. If you could provide some sense as you see Kremlin motivation in going into Crimea, and for that matter what they're doing in Ukraine. Thanks, John, and thanks very much to Ambassador Taylor and Ambassador Charlie for being here today. It's a great honor, and it's obviously a very solemn occasion. I think people in our line of work as Russia experts all have to continue to display a real degree of humility about our ability both to understand what's going on today, but let alone predict the future. And if you step back and you think about the sweep of the past 30 odd years in that region, very few of us would have ever predicted that a mid-level and pretty undistinguished intelligence operative named Vladimir Putin would emerge as the leader of Russia, let alone one of the world's longest-standing rulers and someone who has kind of put his stamp on the international scene with tremendous force. Secondly, I think people would not have predicted that we would be dealing with a Russia today, which has become far wealthier, far stronger, far more powerful militarily, far more influential internationally than all of us who worked on these issues in the 90s were anticipating. Third, I think very few of us would have anticipated that we would be dealing five years on with events in Ukraine that came, I think, as a large surprise to many of us, the revolution of dignity, Russian aggression against Ukraine, and seizure of Crimea. Likewise, I think few of us would have predicted Russian intervention in Syria, which has decisively turned the direction of that civil war. Few of us would have anticipated that Russia would intervene so undisguisedly, so blatantly, in U.S. domestic politics on behalf of a single presidential candidate. And then likewise, I think very few of us could, and this is the happy note all this, see five years on that Ukraine has solidified its sovereignty and its independence, rebuilt its institutions on the democratic footing and safeguarded its independence. All of these events, as John was alluding to, are occurring against a backdrop of sweeping international changes. And Russia is not the architect of those international changes, but it certainly very opportunistically plays on them to its take advantage and to throw its adversaries off balance. So just quickly, we are seeing across the world, not just in this particular region, a rebalancing of military, economic and political power. We're seeing the rise of ethnic and populist nationalism, including in this country, unfortunately. We're seeing forces of fragmentation and division and the fracturing of regional order. We're seeing the spillover of a dysfunctional and broken Middle East, and we're seeing sweeping technological changes. So again, that's the backdrop for everything that we're going to talk about in this panel. And if you drill down and you look at what Russia is doing, and this comes back to John's direct question, we're seeing a very opportunistic Russia, a leader who acts impulsively. I don't think that Imer Putin went to sleep on New Year's Eve 2014, thinking that just a few months later he would be at war in Ukraine, that he would have seized Crimea by force, and be conducting a covert war of aggression in eastern Ukraine. So all these events have, I think, unfortunately, taken their course, not because of some Russian grand plan, but in part due to a pattern of impulsiveness and opportunism which continues to this day. And what they've also seen, and this I think comes back as well to what John was pointing to, is that it's not over, and that the Russian leadership views much of what it is doing today as a response to an existential threat. There is a deep, I think, and sincere belief that the West seeks regime change in Russia, and so that the way Russia pushes back about against that threat is to use the asymmetrical advantages it has. And those were illuminated and enumerated by George very ably in describing the kinds of tactics Russia is using to undermine the international order, and to make sure that its adversaries stay off balance. And I fear, and this is, maybe I'll conclude here, and I'll pass it back to John, that the West remains sort of fundamentally on the back foot. And as much as our resolute policy response and our determination to promote unity between the U.S. and Europe and other international partners and support of Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity should remain enduring and unchanged, the reality is, is that we've seen, particularly since the arrival of a new administration in Washington, that that unity is fraying. And so sort of job one is to sort of stop doing and to stop undermining some of the important policy framework that Tori and others put in place after 2014. It's to shore up Western unity and to show that there's a cost to the kind of aggression and tactics Russia is employing, and then to show our support for Ukrainian independence and sovereignty going forward. I'd like to give you one more question before turning to Heather. I commend to everyone's attention so we understand better what's going on in Moscow the speech that General Garasimov, the head of the Soviet Armed Forces gave a week or so ago. And he said something very interesting, he said very many things were very interesting, one of which was that Moscow is pursuing an aggressive policy, actually acknowledged that as a form of defense. Now my analysis, but I want yours Andrew, is that he did that because polls have shown for months now, Lovato Center polls right, Lovato Center, the premier polling institution in Moscow have shown for months now that the Russian people by a clear majority want an improvement of relations with the West. So he was in a sense explaining to the Russian people why the Kremlin is doing something which perhaps the Kremlin thinks they Russian people don't fully accept. Andrew your comments. Russian people don't get a vote on their leader's foreign policy. This is a top-down, very elite driven country. It is a country which is also very nimble and finds justifications based on whatever's going on at a particular moment for what it's doing. It can very without any embarrassment claim that it hasn't interfered in Western democracies. It can claim that it's not conducting aggression against Ukraine and its military leaders can say what you just described. My concern is that we have seen that they mean business and they continue to be willing to use escalation elements of surprise and to conduct foreign policy that basically looks like one big covert action to throw us off balance. And those are very real tactics that are very dangerous and we've seen in Syria as well that Russia is willing to deliberately court danger and to encourage and to use those tactics to push us off balance and to make us back off. And the goal for Western policymakers has to be to show that we're solid, we're steady, and we're not going to be intimidated. That's very astute analysis. Now you've said as part of your analysis that the United States sure the West understands this and so with that as an entree. Heather, the European assessment to extend to talk of one UL, more than one perspective in Europe, the European assessment of the Kremlin policy. Well, John, thank you, Bill. Thank you so much. Maybe I'll just be a little counterintuitive to something that Andrew said about the humility of which we should approach this. We did hear voices from Europe that warned us this could be a possibility in the Baltic States and Central Europe. We heard those voices, but we didn't pay attention to those voices. And if you look back, and I was so glad that the George pulled back a little bit and looked at the totality of the region, and I don't want to take anything away from the concentration that we must place on Crimea and events in the Donbass. But if you look back, this has been a pattern which has been established since 1999 when Russian forces refused to leave Transnistria, Moldova. And then it grew in 2008 to the Georgia-Russian crisis, and now we have the most acute phase five years ago with the most devastating consequences for Ukraine. So sometimes I feel like we don't want to see this. We don't want to address it. And I, again, George, I really appreciate your comments to say the West is struggling with this. The asymmetry is that we don't want confrontation. We don't want conflict. We want to address this diplomatically. We want to manage this in a way. But the challenge is the Kremlin understands our need not to confront and helps us by putting us in diplomatic cul-de-sacs that can't be resolved. Moldova, it's the 5 plus 2 process. Georgia, it's the Geneva process. And now for Ukraine, it's the Minsk process norm. These are designed not to go anywhere. And so the creeping push borders and ceasefire violations. And it was very much, I think, to the powerful conversation of our speakers. It is designed for us to forget about it, accept it. It's not going away until the creeping integration annexation happens again. So we did hear voices, but we chose to say, no, no, no, this isn't going to happen. We're okay. We got this. This has been happening for a very long time. This is a creeping Russian onschluss. And the European, I would argue, the transatlantic response has been as best as we can make it, but it has been insufficient for this crisis. But I do agree with the humility we all must face, but we did hear voices. And I just think we did not pay sufficient attention to them. Okay. Tori, you were truly the backbone of the Obama administration in responding to Moscow's aggression in Ukraine. If you give us some sense in U.S. policy, then and now. Well, thanks, John. And thanks to Bill, the Institute of Peace, and the Atlantic Council, to Ambassador Charlie, and to our Ukrainian and Crimean Tartar guests. I am honored to be part of this event. It is absolutely essential that we not only never forget, but that we keep these issues front and center in minds in Washington and across the free and liberal world. So I'm very pleased to be here today. You know, some people have said that we were surprised by the seizure of Crimea. I think there were some in Washington who were surprised, but we began worrying about this as early as December of 2013. And I remember sitting in two rounds of negotiations between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov before the occupation of Crimea, trying to head it off, trying to create a negotiated framework, and then two further rounds after Crimea and before the entry into Donbas. I agree with Andrew that the Russians have been opportunistic, but I don't agree with him that they don't plan. I think there's been a lot of planning, and there is continual planning. The way they move into Crimea worked clearly was the result of extensive military and political planning, and the speed with which the security occupation first and then the effort to politically legitimize happened indicates that there was a lot of planning afterwards. Beforehand, our immediate effort, and this was the first of a long series of efforts to try to stay together with our European, Canadian, and other global allies, including Japan and Korea, to the extent that we could, was designed first and foremost, as you know, to deny political legal legitimacy, to deny economic opportunity, but also to make clear to the world that this was an issue of global legal precedence, that if you allow a country to bite off a piece of its neighbor, then that can happen anywhere by anyone. So that move happened relatively quickly. What was harder to organize were the sanctions, but the fact that we relatively quickly, especially as compared to later difficulties that we had organizing for Donbass, which was slower, although equally impactful in some ways, because of the violence of the way Crimea happened because of the extreme illegitimacy, because it was impossible to hide the Russian hand, we very quickly were able to sanction all economic activity by the West into Crimea. The piece of it that we didn't completely, and the idea there was to, again, make the cost of managing Crimea high for the Kremlin, and to ensure that if you bite off a piece of another country, it dries up in your mouth. That was the theory. What I would argue, though, is that we have begun to disarm over the last at least two years in terms of the way we approach the continued creeping Russian efforts to cause folks to forget, to take further action, whether it's in Donbass or Syria or Crimea or across the Kursh Strait. And there's, you know, one example is the bridge over Kursh. We should have understood that this was not simply a physical way of supplying Crimea, that it was a security play, that it was a political play, that it was an economic play, and that the goal of it was to make a Russian lake within Azov, to increase their territorial hold on the eastern portions of Ukraine, to ensure that Mariupol and Burdiansk as ports are under the economic thumb of Moscow, and that the political reach of the Donbass operation could connect. I remember in the early days of Donbass we were concerned about a land grab from Donbass across to Crimea, and a lot of the sanctioning and other support we did to Ukraine, for Ukraine was designed to ensure that that didn't happen, and then again in 15 when we worried about that. What the Kremlin has achieved now with this bridge is an effort to control the territory without having to police the territory, if you will. So the question becomes where were we in March, April, May, June of 18, I know where George was, I don't know where the rest of the administration and the rest of Europe was, as the harassment of Ukrainian shipping was beginning, as the first efforts to gain control of that territory was beginning, as has already been said, perhaps we didn't want to see. So we waited until the crisis emerged, and even after the crisis, where were we in trying to increase our presence in the Black Sea? We're only just getting there now. Where were we in terms of supporting the Ukrainian naval capacity? Where were we in terms of a fast, ready sanctions reaction? I do commend the administration for the sanctions that were put on on Friday. I think they importantly highlight the fact that Russia's intention in Crimea was not to improve the life of citizens, even of Russian citizens. It was to create a massive military base and a massive effort to exploit the natural resources to self-finance their adventure in Crimea, which is getting more and more expensive, not just managing Crimea, but the bridge itself. And so when we put on sanctions that focus the attention on the militarization of the peninsula, which sanction energy companies that are trying to export and therefore self-finance, that's important. But it's not as much as our Crimean friends have asked for and our Crimean Tartar friends have asked for, which is to ensure that every major enterprise in Crimea is subject to sanctions. But most importantly, the thing that worked best in the Obama term was when we and Europe could together pre-agree on a set of sanctions and hold them up and explain to Russia what would happen next if they took further action. Often we were late in this after Debaltseva, for example. But it did have a deterrent effect on next action. So, were I sitting in the old chair? Were I sitting with folks who wanted to get ahead of this, as Andrew has said, first and foremost, always together with Europe? So the fact that we have lost our transatlantic unity not only on this issue, but on so many other issues. And I commend George for the fact that this is the only actual step of transatlantic unity in a long time, the set of sanctions that were done on Friday, but they were late and perhaps not enough. So transatlantic unity, free world unity, first and foremost. Number two, an escalating a willingness, a demonstration of willingness to escalate, which will, in ways that will cost Russia politically and economically, and an ability to move far more quickly than we have. It's difficult. We wrestled with that as well, or absolutely essential. But I also want to shout out something that George said at the end, which is the greatest antidote to the Russian model is a successful, democratic, free, clean, just model right on its borders, which is why the project that Ukraine is embarked on to save and strengthen the other 93% of the country is so very, very important, because what we want to get to is the kind of Ukraine that Russians wish that they had at home, and these elections are very important in that as well. Tori, that was splendid.  The Kremlin war in Ukraine, we've seen as kind of in two sectors, Crimean is one, and Donbass is the other. But what's happened over the past year is the Kremlin has demonstrated how they're using Crimea in order to enhance their position in Donbass and to increase pressure on Ukraine by building the bridge, by starting the harassment of both Ukrainian international shipping going into the Sea of Ozoff. And this is very dangerous. By and large, Ukraine under the current rules of engagement of the Kremlin has fought Moscow to a standstill. But as a result of this play in the Sea of Ozoff, Ukrainian shipping and international shipping into Burjansk and Marupol has dropped at least 33% as much as 50%, imposing a great economic cost on Ukraine overall and Donbass in particular. You've mentioned as well you praised the United States and Europe for the sanctions that were announced last week, but in your very diplomatic way, and in my post-state department career, I proved to be most undiplomatic, former diplomat, let me be more forward. I think the sanctions were inadequate. I think they are therefore not ultimately helpful that at this point in time, Moscow's seizure of the Ukrainian ships near the Straits of Kerch are a tactical victory because they've paid not a significant price. We need more sanctions so this becomes a strategic defeat for Putin. Now, having said all that, let me ask Andrew, your sense of the state of play on the Straits of Kerch incidents was, how is this perceived in the Kremlin, recognizing that we have to be humble in the way we analyze what they're up to? I think that the fact that it took us until last Friday to respond to an event that happened before Thanksgiving tells you what you need to know. Okay. Heather, the European side of this equation. I was just in Berlin and Brussels last week. They've seen most of the year, my Western European intelligence can be quite satisfied with the sanctions, not interested in doing something more. Your comments. Right. I think it follows very much along, Andrew, when it takes five months to respond, we shouldn't be self-congratulatory. And I think absolutely Europe has struggled to maintain that solidarity and unity. Just into many things we point to as success is that the European Union sanctions have remained intact and have strengthened. But some research that we've done recently, I think in some ways that's starting to become a more hollow proposition. Despite the fact we're delighted that the sanctions are rolled over every six months, is that there's a hollowing out of them. We've seen an uptick in Russian foreign direct investment stocks coming into Europe. They're choosing other means. So these sanctions, although symbolic and potent to some extent, they're not the panacea. And when you have, you know, when you see the events yesterday in Crimea where Siemens turbines are there, we know we're not being 100 percent successful. The European Union is not being 100 percent successful. So again, I think this is all about we feel comfortable with what we've done, we've done enough, and then we're very busy with our own internal European Parliament elections, obviously Brexit, the migration challenges that Russia did exacerbate with the military intervention in Syria in 2015. All of these issues be distracted, we'll do the minimal, we hope it's enough, and it will not stop. This will continue to be pressed exactly what Toria said. We need to be anticipatory and have this ready and be a very strong response. It can't take five months to wrestle it out of us. Toria, what would you recommend Washington to do right now going forward to deal with this, the Straits of Kerch Incident and generally Crimean? Well, I think obviously we have to be guided by the Ukrainians and I don't know what the Ukrainian government asked for in that period before the November crisis. But I was struck right afterwards by something that Carl Bilt recommended that the OSCE could very quickly have offered a non-unarmed maritime patrolling effort, which could have moved from the Black Sea with perhaps even neutral country vessels to keep the strait open. We could easily have organized a multilateral format for discussing rules of the road in freedom of navigation, both for security vessels and for economic vessels. I don't know whether the Ukrainian side asked for that or whether they would still be interested. But I think freedom of navigation all the way through to the border is very important and certainly to ensure that those eastern parts of free Ukraine, let's put it that way, can continue to prosper economically. And that's very important politically for the success it says of Ukraine. But as I say, we should have had and I agree with colleagues that we should have had the next round of sanctions on the shelf. We should have moved immediately. The fact that we really don't have, we've had a little bit of U.S. naval presence in the Black Sea. That's a good thing, but we could have had an accelerated Sea Breeze exercise at NATO. We're going to have one in the summer. But we need to keep this issue front and center. I would urge the Ukrainians to be inviting Western journalists too to better understand the security and political impacts and the economic impacts of what's going on. The Russian bridge over the Straits of Kerch is simply a road bridge at the present time. The plans are supposed to have it be able to have a railroad bridge as well as be able to pump raw materials into Ukraine. This highlights the supply problem that Moscow has in especially water and energy for the peninsula. Andrei Aladyonov had a piece a few months ago suggesting that the next Kremlin action if they choose to escalate might be to seize water in north of Hursong, diverted to Crimea. Andrew, your thoughts on this? Recognizing again, we're looking through a crystal ball. Yeah, my crystal ball is horrible and my track record is even worse. But I really think that the challenge here is the lack of unity and the fact that the current administration has now seen that you can spend two odd years trashing our European allies, trashing particularly Berlin, which has been the lynchpin of the Western response. And then when you turn to them and you ask for something after having aggregated the Iran deal, having walked out of the Paris climate deal, having said that NATO allies are deadbeats. And then you see that there's less there there in our US-European relationship. And you're surprised, I'm not surprised. So this is not over. And we are going to see further risks. The Russians have shown that in Donbass they have the ability to turn this up and turn this down. Diplomatic process with Toria's former counterpart, Vladislav Sarkov, is essentially totally more abundant. I don't believe there's been any diplomatic contact at that level in more than a year. The Russians are not paying a price. And their risk calculus, I think, as George said a few minutes ago, has basically not been altered by the Western policy response, including all the sanctions, including all the diplomatic challenges that the West has put in front of Russia. So as you look at that picture and you ask, are the Russians going to move incrementally to create more facts and to do things that basically undermine Ukraine, to make the Western interest in Ukraine go down? Yes. And are we ready for that? No. Do you want to comment? Well, I mean, again, I think what you're doing, John, is thinking about some scenarios and how to be anticipatory. And I think the tragedy of this, of the last five years, Ukraine has been such an extraordinary laboratory for Russian tactics and techniques, understanding how they work. So this is a point that we need to elevate, have more engagement from a security standpoint, an economic standpoint, to understand tactics, to build in resilience and response to them. And this is running those scenarios. What will our response be? Where's the prepared joint statements? And my concern is it's not just the push out or the continual push out, whether that's Crimea, military buildup, the Donbass. I think we're going to continue to see pushing towards Belarus. And you're seeing where President Lukashenko is now speaking of integration and thinking about that process. I fear, and I hope I'm very wrong, this will not stop for quite a while. And we need to develop those scenarios and develop with our European partners. What is the security response? What's the economics response? Once the diplomatic response, it's not going away. Just to add, John, the next hurdle, though, is political, both for Europe and for Ukraine. Russia has an interest in bad quality elections in Ukraine that the Ukrainian people don't have confidence in, and any violence that might erupt there for both for moral equivalency with some of their own troubles, but also to prove that the democratic experiment is not working. They also have an interest in a European parliament that is increasingly anti-European when there are European elections in May. So watch that space and we have to be vigilant as a family. And because we, the United States, have not successfully grappled with this very effective tool of Russian encroachment on democracy at home, we certainly haven't been able to lead our allies and partners in a joint response, which is absolutely necessary. Okay, I'm going to turn to audience questions now, but before that, I just want to make one comment because I don't want to end on a bleak note. Right now, the Kremlin is not doing any serious negotiation because they're waiting on the Ukrainian elections, presidential and rada. Putin is hoping that some leadership will emerge in Ukraine that will be more amenable to concessions. He will be disappointed. At that point, he'll have a tough choice to make, whether to enter serious negotiations or not to escalate. I suspect he'll go for serious negotiations, but that's why I'm disappointed by the Western response on Kerch because the Western response had been stronger. That would be, that would strengthen the hands of those in Moscow who argue for ultimately getting out of Donbass. And with that, questions right here. Thank you for all of the panelists for your valuable interventions. And the question is, I have two questions actually. First, for Heather and another one for Victoria. For Heather, the question is that you've been mentioning several formats, whenever we speak about Georgia or Moldova and Minsk referring to Ukraine. But unfortunately, this very former does not include Crimea. So actually, something that we've been referred, and I've been also vocalling that in my speech, that the Ukrainian government wants is actually this kind of formalized platform that would anyhow consider Crimean issue on the highest level of international agenda, security dimension, naval dimension, shipping, something that we see in Asov and Black Sea, human rights, I mean, humanitarian dimension, something that we have to have. Do you believe that we can launch this kind of platform, formalized platform, for Crimea? Because as far as I know, it's always like this. If you want to get a finger, you have to bite a hand so that you could bargain the finger. This is the same that they did in Ukraine. They first occupied Crimea and then went to Donbass and we were not ready to have any kind of response. The Donbass was the direct consequence of the Crimean occupation. And the question to Victoria is, you've been referring several times that for you personally, it was not unexpected to step the Russian invasion in Ukraine, that Russia did plan this in advance. What is Russia's next plan? How do you think? And if the world, and it's very direct question, and if the world has any kind of response for further Russian plans in Ukraine? Thank you. Well, thank you for the format questions. You could tell from my comments, I'm a little negatively disposed to the format process, because I feel like it's in some ways designed to continue to make us feel better that we have a process that we're addressing something, yet the other side sees it as simply a tactic to continue to delay and then to push out what they want. So in some ways we're trapped in this devastating status quo. My concern, and Toria's thoughts on this would be much more insightful than my own. At least for the Moldova process, the 5 plus 2, and then of course for the Georgia process, the U.S. is involved at the table. For the Normandy format, the U.S. is not. And that, in some ways, I've always found was a peculiarity. I think we are stronger together. We bring different skills and talents to that table. So perhaps in an optimistic where we have a presidential election, a Rada election, we can somehow reboot if John is right and there's an urge for a new negotiation to have the U.S. engaged in that process. And that's exactly where I would bring Crimea into that process. Now it's being overly optimistic on my part. So I think let us not be fooled about these negotiations. I find that the Russian negotiators are there forever. They remember everything. We turn every two years. We send a new soul. We think we can resolve this. We don't know this is a tactic of delay. So I think more senior U.S. engagement elevate and I like to say enlarge the challenge of this to try to get a better dynamic. I would just say that I don't think Russia's going to talk unless the costs are higher. And I don't think the costs are going to be higher unless the U.S. leads the creation of higher costs with its allies and partners. And as, you know, Andrew and John have made clear, we're not exactly in the business of building strong multilateral platforms with our European allies at the moment. So again, I think we are disarming in the face of this as we are in the face of the electoral challenge, in the face of the now new nuclear challenge to Europe as we withdraw from the INF Treaty and basically allow Russia to do what it wants with intermediate-range nukes. So number one, we need a Russia policy. We need a comprehensive Russia policy that provides both incentives for better behavior and higher costs for not considering coming back into compliance with international norms. On the Crimea side, I think, you know, the Russians are never going to have a separate standalone negotiation for Crimea because they believe it's internal. I think we did a pretty good job of keeping the issue strong and alive within the OSCE, among a large number of OSCE participating states who were focused on using OSCE tools for human rights purposes, for shouting out, you know, political abuses and those kinds of things. I mean, we always assumed that if the Donbass negotiations succeeded, you could go on and at least stabilize the Crimea situation, but we never got that far. I of course agree that the United States should be fully part of the Minsk process. There were reasons it didn't happen under President Obama and there are reasons it's not happening now, but we actually have no process. And I don't think, I don't agree with you, John, that the Russians are going to come back to the table after the Ukrainian elections. They'll then be looking at American elections and they will stall and stall unless it hurts more, which it doesn't. Fair point. Okay, on the back and then we'll go over here. Hi, voice of America, Ms. Noland. What would you recommend to the current administration, how to stop Nordstrom too, and considering that Angela Merkel is pushing hard to build the project? Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent is still here and you can ask him questions too. So if you like, as well as Ambassador Charlie, Deputy Minister, Deputy Speaker. George, you want to take that one? Look, I don't think that with allies, public beatings usually work very well. What we were trying to do and we were relatively successful at slowing Nordstream's progress until the end of the Obama administration was to work within the European Union to ensure that the project went through extremely rigorous political, economic, and environmental scrutiny as well as with states on the literal and with Germany to quietly create other alternatives. Some of that work, as I understand it, is still ongoing and the EU still has votes to play on this. I think far more important at this point, given how far along the project is, is to accelerate the delivery of LNG to Germany and other forms so that the general dependence on Russian oil and gas goes down. I would just like to add one thing here. The Russians have made the completion of Nordstream too a little bit harder over the past three weeks. For Merkel, it's very important to at least have a sense or possibility that gas will continue to flow through Ukraine even after Nordstream too is completed. And she's made this a selling point for proceeding with Nordstream too. But about two and a half weeks ago, the Russian energy minister Novak said that, oh yes, gas could continue to flow through Ukraine as long as not just it's economically viable, which is okay, but also if all problems between Naftakhaz and Gazprom will resolve by the end of this year. This was noted in Germany as a problem for Merkel. Then Medvedev weighed in about a week after that. He repeated those two conditions and for good measure he added a third, which is Ukraine must be quote unquote politically stable. And we know how the Kremlin assesses Ukrainian political stability. This also was noted in Berlin. I was just there while in the foreign ministry with its espada inclinations they tried to dismiss it. Even they understood it's a problem. Right here. I like the cool of Vistil V media group from Riga Latvia. Well, I heard the word the resistance many times. Well, when I was following the events, I didn't see much resistance. In fact, as far as I know, 75% of Ukrainian servicemen, military servicemen pledged allegiance to Russian Federation, right? Then I heard you referred to Baltic States. I want to tell you that, for instance, in Latvia, with 40% of Russian-speaking population, a Russian language is outlawed, basically rooted out. And you can be fined and punished for using it in many places. In Crimea, as far as I know, there are three state languages. Wait, wait, wait. Is there a question? Question to Madam Assistant Secretary Newland. What is the criteria of a real democracy for you? If nobody can deny it, I think that the majority of local population of Crimea voted or support the reunification with Russia. So how does it go with a real democracy? Thank you. Yeah. Okay, that's it. I think George and his statement put some of the figures on the table in terms of the quality of that vote that in certain key districts of Crimea, magically 120% of the population voted. So that's obviously not a free and fair election. Generally, when you have a change of status of this magnitude that you are asking a population to consider, first of all, the home state of the territory gets a vote. So there was no effort to involve the entire Ukrainian population in this election, I would note. Number one, number two, you had already purged or sent on the run most of the strong Ukrainian partisans by the time the vote happened. There was no public discussion in the Kosovo context. We had four years of UN resolutions, a war, and then 15 years of efforts to negotiate before most of us recognized the will of the Kosovo people. So there was nothing democratic about this. It was first at the point of a gun. It was second two and a half or three weeks after that in a state of heightened militarism and extremism, it didn't include the whole population of the home country. And even then, the numbers don't add up. I would like to add, I would like to add something so that this next piece of mythology and illusions that the Russian representatives are trying to push on us, these people were forcing population, forcing residents to vote at the referendum using firearms. Tens and thousands of residents in Kerch, Simferopol, were standing on the side of the road with posters put in go away. We don't need your protection against terrorists. They were voting against tensors. And it's a shame that you can push your blatant lies on us five years after the occupation. This is a lifestyle. Well, there is a High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Russian Federation on the web. So under the President's office, President Putin's office, on their website for a couple of days in the spring of 2014, there was analysis written by Russian political technology, Russian experts, saying that in the Crimean referendum, at most 30, between 30 and 50 percent of the population voted, not the 90 some odd presented. And of those who voted, their analysis was that at most 50 to 60 percent voted in favor of joining Russia. You do the math. That means that most 30 percent of the voting population of Crimea voted for this. Also, the last real information we have on the views of Krimchania, the residents of Crimea, regarding being part of Ukraine or not, were polls taken in January of 2014 when it was still a free Crimea. And those polls showed that at most 42 percent of the population of Crimea were in favor of either independence or joining Russia. But we all know that the Russian referendum was a pokazukha, something for show. Okay, next question. This gentleman right here. Hello, Alexander Kristyanka, TV Channel Russia. Just a quick follow-up, some of your speakers, shamefully called Russia, Russia's action fascist. I'll remind you that 27 million of Soviet people and Russian people primarily lost their lives fighting Nazis. After they were in a pact with them. But please, a question. People, so please, it's a shame. So you talked a lot about aggressive actions of Russia, but what do you think about the Kiev's decision to cut off the water supply, electric power supply to Crimean Peninsula? Okay, thank you. We'll answer that question. No, no, no, one question, please. Okay, thank you. Anyone want to take it? Oh, it's a very strange position for Nazis, for Nazis.  Not on the part of the Ukraine, the so-called cessation of water supply to the Crimea is the fact that demonstrates the unacceptance, the illegal nature of the actions of the Russian occupants, the Nazis of 21st century in the territory of the Crimea.  And I can assure you that even the inmates welcomed these steps on behalf of the Ukraine, the Crimean Tatars and other residents of the Ukraine residing, citizens of Ukraine residing in the Crimea, they stand ready to tough it out, to accept the position of the Ukraine until the Nazis get the hell out of the Crimea. It was very weird to hear the reference for the word fascist, because none of the speakers actually never mentioned these very word fascists. You were the first to bring it to the table. No, he was just referring and responding to your question. And the second issue is that according to the international humanitarian law, the occupying state is directly responsible for the everything that has been happening under the circumstances of occupation. So Russia is responsible for everything that has been happening in Crimea. And this is something that you may not refer to Ukraine if it comes for the situation with water supplies, whatever energy that you mentioned. Thank you. I think we have time for one more question. Hi, Bill Hill currently with Kennan Institute. And well, I'd just like to ask all of the members of the panel and maybe this will be a good wrap up for you. Given the situation that we're in, all that you've described today, what are each of your thoughts of the best approach that we in the United States here can take towards the long term goal of restoration of Crimea to Ukraine? First of all, the United States needs to, as Toria and others have alluded, restore a sense of joint purpose with Europe. Second, it needs to redouble its efforts to support an independent, democratic, prosperous Ukraine. And then three, we need to be able to show that there are costs and maintain both the unity that's been important up to now on sanctions, but also that there are costs for further Russian mischief and troublemaking in its neighborhood. Well, in some ways we have to return and rebuild our own foundations of what U.S. policy stands for. And that's what, when Bill was talking about the Wells Declaration and non-declaration, we have to return to our roots and fight for those roots. And remember that we do have a moral voice and we have to start putting that captive nation's week to practice. We have to keep these issues elevated, then join with our European partners and making sure that they remain focused. But it's essential that U.S. understands what's at stake. U.S. applies its own leadership and can work successfully with others. Unfortunately, those conditions are not at their most optimum right now to do that. I would agree with all that. We have to lead true to our values at home first and then abroad. We need to remind the American people why these issues matter, that we want to live on a planet where democracy, freedom, justice and international collaboration are expanding rather than shrinking. And that Ukraine is a microcosm of that. And we need comprehensive policies that we can work with our allies and partners rather than creating more frictions. We need to build a common democratic front to deal with the authoritarians in our midst who are getting stronger and exploiting this moment of U.S. disarmament and European self-absorption. But I want to end by saying Ukrainian citizens have a very strong role to play this spring in demanding free, fair elections and setting a spectacular example for the rest of us of what a country can look like when it chooses a better future. I would simply add I endorse everything said regarding what Western policy and U.S. policy should be. But we need more and painful sanctions on the Kremlin and we need more specific and helpful weaponry in Ukraine to deal with the threat from sea, to deal with the threat from air. Because we know that this is a war of the Kremlin against the Ukrainian people, the Russian people are not in this fight. We need to make clear escalation by the Kremlin will lead to more casualties of Russian soldiers. Thank you. Thank you to Bill Taylor for a wonderful background. So let me, in closing, let me thank John for moderating this and the Atlantic Council co-sponsoring. Toria, Heather, Andrew, thank you very much for your comments. Ambassador Chaly, it's great to have you as always, Deputy Minister, Deputy Speaker. It's great to have you. Please, and George Kent, thank you George. Please join me in thanking all of the participants here and we look forward to the next one. Thank you.