[Senate Hearing 117-344]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-344
RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE: ASSESSING
THE U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 8, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-350 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut MITT ROMNEY, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon TODD YOUNG, Indiana
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
Damian Murphy, Staff Director
Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator From New Jersey.............. 1
Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 3
Nuland, Hon. Victoria, Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.............. 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 7
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Ms. Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted by
Senator Jim Risch.............................................. 44
Responses of Ms. Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted by
Senator Todd Young............................................. 58
Letter From Ruslan Stefanchuk, Parliament of Ukraine, Dated March
8, 2022........................................................ 62
(iii)
RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE: ASSESSING THE U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL
RESPONSE
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:59 p.m., in
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert
Menendez presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen,
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van
Hollen, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Paul, Young,
Barrasso, and Cruz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
The Chairman. Now the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
hearing on ``Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Assessing the U.S.
and International Response'' will come to order.
Let me thank Secretary Nuland for coming before us today to
testify on the crisis facing Ukraine, Europe, and the world and
for being with us yesterday in a classified session so that all
of the questions that members would want to ask, some which
could not be conducted in this forum, could be answered. We
appreciate you being there.
In just 12 days, the world has changed. As we sit here,
Ukraine is fighting for its life. A ruthless dictator is
shelling civilians, refusing calls for diplomacy, and
threatening the stability of a region.
As of this morning, at least 470 Ukrainian civilians have
lost their lives because of Putin's brutality. At least 29 of
them were innocent children.
The last 12 days have been an entire lifetime for the
people of Ukraine, forced to leave their lives behind, spending
days in subways and makeshift bomb shelters, fleeing from
mortars with their children in hand, and sometimes they do not
make it.
The rest of the world is being called upon to stand with
Ukraine to make this war untenable for the dictator in Moscow.
The United States and much of the world has rallied with
impressive urgency and coordination.
I commend the Administration's efforts--the result of
months of relentless diplomacy--to build a strong international
coalition that has stood up and imposed sweeping costs on the
Putin regime.
To date, we, along with the European allies and partners
and others, have levied serious costs that are already having a
devastating effect on the Russian economy. The central bank of
Russia is subject to unprecedented sanctions. The top banks in
Russia are sanctioned along with Putin himself, and company
after company is cutting off Russian ties.
We have made clear that with this unjustified, unprovoked
invasion, Putin has miscalculated. He has chosen to turn the
Russian state into a pariah and to have the Russian people
suffer as a result of it.
I am afraid, and I hope I am dead wrong, that this may just
be the beginning of the fight for Ukraine's existence.
We are here and we are prepared to support the Ukrainian
people, but it may be a long road. While the response of the
past 12 days is valiant, it cannot be the end.
Until Putin relents, we must keep the pressure on. That
means holding Belarus and the Lukashenko regime to account for
their role and acquiescence. It means continuing to squeeze
Putin's oligarchs as well as the political elites and seizing
their assets so they feel and respond to the pain.
In some respects, Europe has been somewhat ahead of us on
this score. I think we should be doing what Europe has done. It
means ensuring every bank is cut off from SWIFT. It means
pressuring those countries who have not yet ended economic ties
or arms sales to do so.
It means tariffs on non-oil imports and advocating for the
private sector to follow the lead of some of our companies to
divest and cease operations in Russia and, of course, it means
staying laser focused on providing Ukraine every weapon, every
piece of lethal assistance, every defense article possible, so
that it can defend itself.
Many of us are working to do just that as we speak and to
respond urgently to the personal appeals of President Zelensky
and the Ukrainian ambassador in Washington.
I hope this week will result in a bipartisan demonstration
of support for Ukraine through the omnibus bill as we heed
their calls for additional assistance and weapons. We must also
be thinking about the months ahead and recognize that the
threat of Kremlin aggression is not going away.
I believe we must engage in a revitalized diplomatic effort
to counter Russian aggression not only beyond Europe's borders,
but globally.
Today, I am calling on the Administration to do just that.
I have sent letters to the State Department's regional
assistant secretaries asking that each detail their diplomatic
strategies to counter Russia.
This must be a global effort. We need to match our words
with action to fend off Putin's attempts to tighten his grip
around the world and grasp at political legitimacy.
Most immediately, while I have broader concerns about the
JCPOA, I am specifically concerned that returning to the JCPOA
will benefit Russia economically at a time when the
international community is committed to squeezing Moscow.
I am also extremely concerned that the Administration would
consider purchasing oil from Venezuela. The Biden
administration's efforts to unify the entire world against the
murderous tyrant in Moscow is commendable, but it should not be
undercut by propping up a dictator under investigation for
crimes against humanity in Caracas.
The democratic aspirations of the Venezuelan people, much
like the resolve and courage of the people of Ukraine, are
worth more than a few thousand barrels of oil.
These are extraordinary times and, yes, we are all looking
for extraordinary measures in response, but we cannot lose
sight of our core principles of our basic values.
We must turn Putin back, out of Ukraine, and out of the
regions across the world where his influence has grown.
In closing, the people of Ukraine refuse to back down.
Their cause is our cause because they should not have to fight.
They should not have to flee their borders or leave their
homes. They deserve to live and thrive in freedom.
The fight for Ukraine is a fight for democracy, a fight for
freedom, a fight against a murderous dictatorship, and we
cannot forget that.
Senator Risch.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to Under Secretary Nuland for joining us today to discuss
Russia's unprovoked, unwarranted criminal and murderous
invasion of Ukraine.
I also want to thank you for appearing yesterday and
participating in our closed discussion on the issues. I think
probably you were impressed, as I was, with the unanimity
amongst Republicans and Democrats about how to approach this
issue and what should be done about it.
I also appreciated your agreement to convey the deep
concerns that we had, on a bipartisan basis, on some issues
that we are facing, and I truly appreciate that.
I look forward to your information, today in open session,
about the Administration's actions to help Ukraine, the
additional sanctions on Russia we can expect, and what the U.S.
is doing to assist the massive humanitarian crisis that is
growing both inside Ukraine and in Europe.
I also ask you to address the Administration's larger
strategy for dealing with this crisis. My goal for security
assistance to Ukraine is simple. Enable the Ukrainian people to
expel the murderous invaders from their land and defeat Putin.
I am disappointed the U.S. did not send more to Ukraine
before the invasion began, but I am glad to see the vast amount
of international military support Ukraine has received in the
past 2 weeks.
The U.S. has now sent healthy amounts of equipment to
Ukraine. We all know they need more and they need it faster.
The international outpouring of disgust at Putin's actions
has enabled sanctions on Russia to be more effective than we
predicted. There are still huge loopholes that must be closed.
I am glad the Administration has cut off oil purchases from
Russia. That said, it is imperative that we do not replace
Russia's heavy crude with supplies from the dictators in Iran
and Venezuela.
We are in the enviable position of having the oil and gas
reserves needed to increase production in our own country right
under our own feet. It boggles my mind the Biden administration
would pander to dictators when we can meet our own needs
without blood on our hands.
Secondary sanctions on banks that undertake transactions
with Russia also have not yet been imposed. This leaves open
many different avenues for Russia to continue its transactions
as usual.
As you know, I have been pushing for secondary sanctions
since the beginning of this. I understand that the secondary
sanctions are complex and I understand they must be handled
delicately.
Obviously, with the waivers that are always provided,
secondary sanctions can be an excellent tool. I predict that
secondary sanctions are going to have to be grabbed and put
into place at some point in time, in the not too distant
future.
I also want to say a word about the people of Russia. We
are not at war with Russia and we do not seek war with Russia.
Putin has led the Russian people into disaster.
I know how much Putin is suppressing his own people. I urge
them to refuse to be complicit in his crimes. There is much
ordinary Russian people can do to push back on Putin's ugly
humanitarian crimes.
On the humanitarian front, I applaud the work that State
and USAID have done so far to prepare for and engage with the
huge flow of refugees coming from Ukraine.
The stream of refugees looks to be even larger than
estimated. Our EU partners are very capable of dealing with
this challenge, but we can certainly assist.
I am particularly concerned about Moldova, one of Europe's
poorest countries, which has one of the largest refugee
populations per capita. It is struggling with high Russian-
imposed energy prices and may have to deal with the activation
of 1,500 Russian troops in its occupied region of Transnistria.
This senseless invasion at the hands of a madman is a
threat not just to the innocent people of Ukraine, but to all
of us in the democratic world. This conflict has immense
implications for the people of Ukraine. It also speaks to the
credibility of the U.S. and the West to defend the freedom and
sovereignty of countries that want to decide their own futures.
We must do more to help the innocent civilians, women, and
children who are dying each day, and the men and women who are
fighting on the frontlines in a war they do not want.
I think we all know this can and will get much worse, and I
look forward to hearing more from you in this public forum
about what more the Biden administration will do to respond to
Putin and help the Ukrainian people.
Finally, this struggle that Ukrainians are going through
reminds us that freedom is not free, as we learned in our
struggle to be a free people, and that the value of freedom
cannot be measured, but its costs can be burdensome in the
extreme.
However, at the end of the struggle, there is no greater
gift one generation can pass to the next generation than the
gift of freedom.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Secretary Nuland, we will start with your testimony. There
is a lot to cover so I normally say if you can try to summarize
it in 5 minutes, but we will give you a little latitude and
then there is, I am sure, by the attendance here you see there
will be a lot of questions.
So the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE VICTORIA NULAND, UNDER SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Nuland. Thanks very much, Chairman Menendez, Ranking
Member Risch, and distinguished members of this committee for
the opportunity to be with you here today and for the
opportunity yesterday to talk in classified session to discuss
Russia's premeditated, unprovoked, brutal attack on Ukraine and
what the United States and our allies and partners are doing
together in response.
To start, let me first thank all the members of this
committee and the vast majority of members of Congress for your
strong bipartisan support for the brave and resilient people of
Ukraine and their government over many years, but especially
now in the face of Russia's bloody aggression.
The United States, together with our allies and partners
around the world, stand united in condemning Russia's war on
Ukraine, a war that offends human decency, violates
international law, and the core principles of democracy and
international peace and security, and has created a
catastrophic humanitarian crisis.
As we speak, Ukrainian men and women fight for their lives,
for their country, for their freedom in the face of President
Putin's imperial ambitions. We honor their sacrifice and
bravery. Slava Ukrayini; Heroyam Slava.
First, what we are doing. We continue to provide defensive
lethal security assistance to Ukraine. Just 10 days ago,
President Biden and Secretary Blinken authorized the immediate
delivery of an additional $350 million of military support, and
I am pleased to say that two-thirds of that has already gotten
into Ukraine and, in total, the Administration has provided
more than a billion dollars in security assistance in just this
last year.
With Congress' bipartisan support, we are also facilitating
third party transfers of weapons and have seen unprecedented
international assistance to Ukraine from our allies and
partners.
Second, we are providing urgently needed humanitarian
assistance to Ukraine and its neighbors. Working with the
Government of Ukraine, U.N. agencies, humanitarian
organizations, and European partners, the United States is
providing food, medicine, hygiene supplies, health care, and
protection services, shelter support and other assistance.
Last week, Secretary Blinken announced an additional $54
million in U.S. assistance, and countries around the world have
met the U.N.'s humanitarian appeal with an additional $1.5
billion in support. As you know, with 2 million refugees
already and more than 1.2 million IDPs, needs will go up.
Third, we have imposed severe sanctions on Russia's
financial institutions, its oligarchs, and political leaders,
including President Putin and his cronies.
We have levied export controls on key industries and the
Russian military in close coordination with almost 40 countries
around the world, representing over half the world's economy,
and those sanctions have had an immediate impact.
We are seeing a continued flight of capital, a tumbling of
the ruble--it has lost half its value--rising inflation, higher
borrowing costs, and evaporating access for Russia to global
financial markets.
There is more on the way from the G-7, our EU partners, and
countries around the world if President Putin does not end this
vicious war.
We are also working with our allies and partners to limit
the disruption of global energy supplies and to prevent Russia
from weaponizing its global energy exports while also
accelerating diversification of energy supplies.
We sanctioned the parent company of Nord Stream 2 and its
CEO, and the German Government, as you know, has cancelled its
support for the pipeline so that it will not become
operational.
We are also using all multilateral fora to rally the world
in condemning Russia and Belarus. As you know, last week, a
record 141 countries voted in favor of the U.N. General
Assembly Resolution, calling for Russia to end its war and
withdraw from Ukraine--a historic outpouring of support and
international solidarity.
Days later, the Human Rights Council overwhelmingly passed
a resolution establishing a Commission of Inquiry to
investigate and call out Russia's human rights abuses in
Ukraine, and in close cooperation with our NATO allies, we are
strengthening the defense and the deterrence of the alliance's
Eastern Flank.
Allies agreed for the first time in the alliance's history
to give the Supreme Allied Commander authority to deploy NATO's
response force, including its spearhead component, the Very
High Readiness Joint Task Force--the VJTF--and it is already
beginning to deploy.
U.S. military personnel in Europe and in its waters now
total approximately 100,000. We have more than doubled our U.S.
forces in Poland and sent thousands of troops to the Baltics,
to Romania, and elsewhere along the flank, along with advanced
combat aviation.
A number of our allies are also starting to flow forces to
NATO's east to bolster their presence and to fulfill their NATO
obligations.
The message to Russia is clear. NATO is united and our
commitment to Article 5 is iron clad. President Putin has not
only attacked Ukraine, he has trashed the U.N. principle of
self-determination of states and questioned Ukraine's very
right to exist.
He is testing the foundations of international law and he
is testing all of us and NATO and the EU and the G-7 and
democracies around the world.
As President Biden said, we are now in a battle between
democracy and autocracy, and free people, free nations, and a
free Ukraine must prevail.
As Putin tries to reduce Ukraine to rubble, he is also
turning Russia into a prison. Credit cards and ATMs have
stopped working, capital controls are biting deeply, imported
food, technology, and other goods are drying up, and the last
of Russia's free press has been strangled, all while the
government hemorrhages money--money that belongs to the Russian
people--to fund its war effort and to prop up the ruble.
Last week, President Putin criminalized anti-war protests
and efforts to support Ukraine. The so-called consultancy laws
with Kyiv can result in 20 years in a penal colony. Thirty
years of progress in Russia has been wiped out in just 12 days.
This is a war launched by one man for his own twisted
reasons. It is a war built on lies he has told the world, he
has told his own people, and his military, and now it is a war
also built on the suffering and grief of so many Ukrainians and
also Russians--parents, spouses, partners, children--who will
never see their loved ones again, all because of one man's evil
choices.
Ukrainians are fighting for their nation's survival, but
they are also fighting for all of us and for the principles of
freedom and democracy that are foundational for our nation and
for our allies and partners.
Together, we must do all we can to ensure Ukraine not only
survives, but it thrives again. We in the Administration are
proud to work with all of you towards that difficult, but
righteous goal.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nuland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. Victoria Nuland
Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, and distinguished members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss Russia's premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal attack
on Ukraine and what the United States and Allied partners are doing in
response.
To start, let me thank the members of this committee and the vast
majority of Members of Congress for your strong bipartisan support for
the brave and resilient people of Ukraine and their government over
many years, but especially now, in the face of Russia's bloody
aggression. The United States, together with our Allies and partners
around the world, stand united in condemning Russia's war on Ukraine--a
war that offends human decency, violates international law, and the
core principles of democracy and international peace and security, and
has created a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. As we speak, Ukrainian
men and women fight for their lives, their country, and their freedoms
in the face of Russian President Putin's imperial ambitions. We honor
their sacrifice and bravery. Slava Ukrayini; Heroyam Slava [Honor to
Ukraine; to its Heroes, Honor].
Our immediate focus has been to provide Ukraine the help it needs
to defend its sovereignty, protect its democratic government, and
support Ukrainians seeking aid and refuge.
First, we continue to provide security assistance to Ukraine,
including equipment needed to defend against threats from the air, from
armored assault, as well as to ensure the people standing up to defend
Ukraine have the body armor and medical support they need. On February
25, President Biden and Secretary Blinken authorized the immediate
delivery of an additional $350 million in military support, and two-
thirds of that has already gotten into Ukraine. In total, the
Administration has provided more than $1 billion in security assistance
in the last year and more than $3 billion since 2014.
We continue to urge Allies and partners to contribute security
assistance to Ukraine as swiftly as possible. With Congress's
bipartisan support we are facilitating third party transfers of weapons
and have seen unprecedented international assistance to Ukraine. Some
of our closest allies and partners have made dramatic policy shifts and
are providing lethal assistance for the first time.
Second, we are providing urgently needed humanitarian assistance to
Ukraine and its neighbors, led by a forward-based team of dedicated
humanitarian response experts from USAID and the Department of State.
Partnering closely with the Government of Ukraine, as well as UN
agencies, humanitarian organizations, and European partners, the U.S.
is providing food, medicine, hygiene supplies, health care and
protection services, shelter support, and other assistance, including
an emergency announcement last week of an additional $54 million in
assistance to those affected by Russia's invasion. As with other forms
of assistance, we are encouraged by the contributions of Allies and
partners who continue to receive and support all those who are fleeing
Ukraine, and who together have pledged nearly $1.5 billion in support
of the UN's humanitarian appeal.
Third, we have imposed severe sanctions on Russian financial
institutions, oligarchs, and political leaders--including President
Putin and his cronies--and levied export controls on key industries and
the Russian military. We have taken these actions in close coordination
with almost 40 countries--representing over half the world's economy--
and they have had immediate impact. We are seeing a continued flight of
capital, a tumbling ruble, rising inflation, higher borrowing costs,
and evaporating access to global financial markets. Additionally, with
Allies and partners, we are launching a joint task force to hunt down
and freeze the assets--including mega yachts and mansions--owned by
sanctioned Russian companies, oligarchs, and government officials. And
we're not done. There is more on the way from the G7 and our EU
partners as early as this week if President Putin does not end his
vicious war.
We are also coordinating closely with our Allies and partners to
limit disruption to global energy supplies and to prevent Russia from
weaponizing its global energy exports while also accelerating
diversification of energy supplies. And as President Biden promised, we
sanctioned the parent company of Nord Stream 2, Nord Stream AG and its
CEO, and the German Government has also cancelled its support for the
pipeline, which will not become operational.
We are using all multilateral fora to rally the world in condemning
Russia and Belarus. As you know, last week 141 countries voted in favor
of the UN General Assembly resolution calling for Russia to end its war
and withdraw from Ukraine, a historic outpouring of support for and
international solidarity with the Ukrainian people. Days later, the
Human Rights Council overwhelmingly passed a resolution establishing a
Commission of Inquiry to investigate and call out Russia's human rights
abuses in Ukraine.
At the Organization for Security and Co-operation (OSCE), we are
resolved to hold Russia and its forces accountable for any and all
human rights abuses, violations of international humanitarian law, and
war crimes they commit in Ukraine--including sexual and gender-based
violence, as we are seeing reports of this and other potential abuses.
And in close cooperation with NATO Allies, we are adjusting our
force posture to strengthen the defense and deterrence of the
Alliance's eastern flank. Allies agreed for the first time in history
to give Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) authority to deploy
the NATO Response Force (NRF), including its spearhead component, the
Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF).
In recent weeks, we have significantly increased U.S. military
personnel positioned in Europe and its waters, which now total
approximately 100,000. We have more than doubled our forces in Poland
and sent thousands of troops to the Baltics, Romania, and elsewhere on
NATO's eastern flank--along with advanced combat aviation. Several
Allies including France, Germany, and the UK, have also bolstered their
troop presence. The message to Russia is clear: NATO is united, and our
commitment to Article 5 is ironclad.
President Putin has not only attacked Ukraine, he has trashed the
UN principle of the self-determination of states and questioned
Ukraine's right to exist. He is testing the foundations of
international law and he is testing all of us. He is testing the
resolve of NATO, the EU, the G7, and democracies around the world. As
President Biden said, we are in a battle between democracy and
autocracy, and free people, free nations, a free Ukraine must prevail.
As Putin tries to reduce Ukraine to rubble, he is also turning
Russia into a prison. Credit cards and ATMs have stopped working;
capital controls are biting deeply; imported food, technology, and
other goods are drying up; international travel is getting difficult
and expensive; the last of a free press plus Twitter, Facebook, and
other social media outlets are strangled, all while the government
hemorrhages state funds on the war effort and to prop up the ruble. And
last week President Putin criminalized anti-war protests and all
sympathy with Ukraine--so called ``consultancy'' with Kyiv can result
in 20 years in a penal colony. Thirty years of progress in Russia has
been wiped out in 10 days.
This is a war launched by one man for his own twisted reasons. It
is a war built on the lies he has told the world, his own people, and
his military. And now it is a war built on the suffering and grief of
so many Ukrainians--and Russians too--parents, spouses, partners,
children--who will never see their loved ones again, all because of one
man's evil choices.
Ukrainians are fighting for their nation's survival. But they are
also fighting for all of us and for the principles of freedom and
democracy that are foundational for our nation and our allies and
partners. Together, we must do all that we can to ensure Ukraine not
only survives, but thrives again. We in the Administration are proud to
work with all of you toward that difficult, but righteous goal.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We will start 5-
minute rounds.
Let me start off with a letter that the Ukrainian
parliament has sent us, and I want to read one paragraph of it
because I think it creates context for everything we are
deciding.
``As you read this, Russian troops are indiscriminately
shelling civilians, residential areas, schools, and
hospitals. The aggressor is using weapons prohibited by
the Geneva Convention and international humanitarian
law such as cluster bombs and vacuum thermobaric bombs,
intended to cause severe suffering to human beings, and
when civilians try to escape the combat zones Russian
soldiers shoot at humanitarian `green corridors,'
turning them blood red.''
I ask unanimous consent that the letter be included in
today's record, without objection.
[Editor's note.--The information referred to above can be found
in the ``Additional Material Submitted for the Record'' section
at the end of this hearing.]
The Chairman. The spokesperson for UNICEF has said 1
million children have fled Ukraine, calling it, ``a dark
historical first.'' That spokesperson said, ``We have not seen
a refugee crisis of this speed and scale since World War II,
and this is a children's crisis.''
So against that backdrop, I understand that the Government
of Poland a very little while ago, after consultations between
their president and the government, are ready to deploy
immediately and free of charge their MiG-29 jets and place them
at the disposal of the United States of America. They have
decided not to go directly, but--and, of course, they are--they
have concerns about the backfilling of that at some point in
time in some way.
Can you speak to that and where we are at in that regard
now that the Government of Poland has made that decision?
Ms. Nuland. Chairman, I saw that announcement by the
Government of Poland as I was, literally, driving here today.
To my knowledge, it was not preconsulted with us that they
planned to give these planes to us. As you know, we have been
having consultations with them for a couple of days now about
this request from the Ukrainians to receive their aircraft and
were they to donate them whether we would be able to help
support backfill in their own security needs.
I look forward, when this hearing is over, to getting back
to my desk and seeing how we will respond to this proposal of
theirs to give the planes to us.
The Chairman. They have moved forward now and they have
said that their planes are now disposable. They are willing to
give it. The one thing that we have heard consistently is a
call for a no-fly zone.
I understand the challenges of that--NATO and other
countries not willing to engage in a direct conflict with
Russia. Giving Ukrainians the wherewithal to fight over their
own airspace and to be able to have some control over their
airspace is, clearly, desirable.
Now that Poland has made this decision and, it would be my
hope, that other countries in the region as well, that we would
be forward-leaning in finding a pathway forward because the one
thing about all of this is time is of the essence. If we are
going to make a difference, time is of the essence.
Let me ask you this. We are doing all these sanctions.
There is no one who has been an advocate of sanctions,
generally speaking, and, certainly, in this case, more than I
have on this committee.
I am wondering about cryptocurrency because we are
sanctioning all of the traditional financial and banking
systems. Cryptocurrency is an opportunity for Russian oligarchs
and others to move in a different direction.
Are we having our Treasury Department and others think
about how we deal with that challenge?
Ms. Nuland. Mr. Chairman, we are. In fact, we have in the
past, as you know, drained designated hacker wallets from
Russia.
We have other authorities that allow us to go after crypto.
Not only are we looking at it ourselves, we are consulting with
our European allies and partners on how we might do more
together to close down this dangerous spigot of revenue.
The Chairman. I think it is going to be one of the
essential elements to continue to dry up every resource that
Putin can have and to continue to tighten the noose--the
economic noose--around his neck, at the end of the day.
Lastly, what are we doing in having a full-scale assault? I
said that I sent letters to all the regional secretaries. It
seems to me that Putin should feel the consequences
everywhere----
Ms. Nuland. Yes.
The Chairman. --and that means whether it be Latin America
or Asia or Africa, we need to be at the forefront of pressuring
Russia in all of those continents, in all of those countries.
Are we actively engaged in doing that?
Ms. Nuland. Mr. Chairman, we are. Not only are we pressing
every country that we speak to at the president and secretaries
level and all the levels in the department, every single one of
our ambassadors has instructions to work with their host
nations to try to get them to match U.S. and EU and allied
sanctions to the extent that they can and are willing to
condemn Russia.
You saw the vote in the UNGA--141 countries. There was
significant, how should we say, diplomatic elbow grease went
into that from allies and partners around the world. As you
know, we have a number of big countries who have abstained from
this fight so far and we are trying to use our influence with
them as well to get on the right side of history.
The Chairman. I hope they get on the right side of history.
Some of them I like very much, but they need to get on the
right side of history.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the
chairman regarding the JCPOA. As I told you in the private
session yesterday, I want to say it publicly here and I hope
you will commit--you will transmit this to the Administration
as you said you would yesterday. That is, there could not be a
worse time for the Administration to be trying to come together
on a JCPOA and announce it when we are in the middle of the
mess we are in right now.
The chairman mentioned reasons for it. There is another
reason for it, obviously, and I think you saw that yesterday,
how united we are as the United States Senate in helping
Ukraine and what is going on diplomatically and otherwise, when
it comes to this struggle.
I cannot think of something you could do that would be
worse to try to tear that apart than announce a JCPOA because
we are going to be very divided on it. They started out saying
it was going to be stronger and longer. There were two
different bumper stickers, I guess. One was stronger and the
other was longer.
Both of those, as we know, are by the by. They then said,
well, they were going to work to get less for less. That has
gone by the by, and from what everything that is leaking out
now, it sounds like it is going to be worse for worse. I just
cannot fathom that we want to enter into that at this point.
As the chairman properly notes, it is going to cause a
tremendous amount of cash to be transmitted to the Russians as
a result of a new JCPOA for the reasons he discussed.
There is no logical reason to be doing that at this time.
Look, this thing has been dragging on. I know that
Administration wanted to immediately reverse what Trump had
done and I get that.
They have been at it now for a year and a half and it,
certainly, can be put off for another 6 months. I am not asking
that you end it.
I know what you are going to do and I know--when I say you,
I mean the Administration--I know what the Administration is
going to do and I know how it is going to wind up. At least put
it on ice for 6 months until we get this mess behind us.
So that is the plea I have on the JCPOA. I think it would
be in everybody's best interest to do that.
As I talked about in our closed hearing yesterday, I hope
you will focus on this. We hear a lot about Stingers. We hear a
lot about the Javelin. We hear a lot about the Russian MiGs
that other countries have. We would like to get into the fight.
One thing that has not been discussed are other surface-to-
air missiles between the Patriots, which are the big gun, and
the Stingers, which are the small gun, I guess. I really think
they could do some good with some of those intermediate
missiles and I hope you will convey that to the Administration
and work on that.
Finally, let me just close with secondary sanctions. I know
the Administration has not reached for the secondary sanction
tool in their toolbox yet. I would say and I would urge, the
minute we see somebody trying to get around these sanctions or
somebody trying to actually do business with the Russians, the
secondary sanctions need to come into play.
They can be used surgically. They can be used in a targeted
fashion so that we do not injure somebody through collateral
damage, either us or one of our partners. That can be done
easily with the waivers.
So I would urge, again, that they keep that tool at the
ready in case they need to use it, and if you want to respond
to any of that you got a minute and 16 seconds.
Ms. Nuland. Thank you, Ranking Member Risch.
Let me just say with regard to the weapons that we are
sending to Ukraine, as you know, we talked about some of this
in classified session yesterday and we, generally, do not talk
in specifics in an open session.
With regard to other systems that we might be able to send,
we are working very hard and fast on that now so--and we can
speak further about it in another setting, if you would like.
Senator Risch. That is good to hear.
Ms. Nuland. With regard to secondary sanctions, I think you
know that some of what we have done already, particularly, the
export control constraints, has a global impact in the sense
that anybody seeking to transfer American high-tech--any
component--anything at all to Russia that has American high-
technology in it, whether that country is Singapore or China or
Germany or whatever, has to have a license. So that is our
effort to create a global regime here.
As I said, we are also seeking to get more and more
countries to join us in as much of this regime as possible, but
we will continue to look at all of these things that you
raised.
Look, we are not having a hearing about the JCPOA. I will
simply say that there was extreme concern that this is not an
issue that can wait, given Iran's acceleration of its
development of technology towards a weapon, and the last thing
we need is this war and Iran with a nuclear weapon. Thanks.
The Chairman. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Secretary Nuland, first of all, thank you
very much, and we, certainly, appreciate the unity that the
Biden administration has been able to achieve with our allies
in the global community in isolating Russia and providing
needed help to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.
So we talk about that there is strong agreement to supply
Ukraine with the defensive lethal weapons they need, and we
have done that and our allies have done that. Countries have
done that. We have been pretty effective in getting that type
of equipment to the Ukrainians.
So I am a little bit baffled as to why it is taking so long
in regards to aircraft getting into Ukraine. President Zelensky
has made it clear he needs it. There is strong unity among all
of us that we should be supplying that, and I know that you are
not up to date as to the most recent announcements made by the
Poles in regards to the aircraft being delivered to Germany.
I would ask that if this is not going to be handled quickly
to please advise this committee. Time is of the essence and we
would like to see those planes there yesterday.
So if there is additional bureaucratic delays in making
this available, I think we want to know about it because we
would like to be helpful in getting it to the Ukrainians as
soon as possible and we mean, like, today.
So if you could just make a commitment to let us know if
there is going to be any delays in accommodating those aircraft
I would appreciate that. I know the committee would appreciate
that.
Ms. Nuland. Thank you very much. I did convey the strong
bipartisan sentiment of the committee yesterday with regard to
these aircraft and will do so again, based on this hearing.
Thanks.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
I want to talk a little bit about Moldova and Georgia. If
it were not for the Ukrainian resistance and Mr. Putin was able
to overtake Ukraine in the timeframe that he thought he would
be able to do it, I daresay that there would be a real concern
that Mr. Putin may be on his way to Moldova and Georgia--non-
NATO countries.
What steps are we taking today to help Moldova and Georgia,
recognizing that if the circumstances change and Mr. Putin
believes he has the ability he would not hesitate to cross
those borders? He already has. I mean, he is already in Moldova
and Georgia in contested areas. They are not contested, but
only by Mr. Putin believing they are contested.
What steps are being taken so that those countries are
going to be in the best possible position to defend themselves
in the event that Mr. Putin decides he is going to move more
aggressively in those two countries?
Ms. Nuland. Thanks, Senator Cardin.
First, with regard to Georgia, as you know, we have a
longstanding security relationship with Georgia. They have also
contributed regularly to all kinds of NATO operations and NATO
exercises and have received lots of U.S. military training and
equipment over the years, which--and that program accelerated
quite a bit after President Putin's invasion of Georgia in
2008. That relationship is strong and continues to be strong.
With regard to Moldova, as you know, Secretary Blinken was
in Moldova. I cannot remember--Saturday, maybe--Friday or
Saturday. He went with the intention of showing U.S. support
and seeking to understand better what their concerns are in the
context of this war and, as you know, were Putin's troops to
make that landing in Odessa, it is just a short hop up
Transnistria and Moldova would be next.
In response to the president of Moldova's request, we are
looking at increasing not only our humanitarian support to
Moldova, because they are also hosting lots of Ukrainian
refugees, but border security and energy security and other
things that that government has asked for, and we will continue
to be responsive as we can.
Senator Cardin. So let me ask one additional question.
As early as Thursday or Friday, we are going to pass an
omnibus appropriation bill. It is going to contain a
significant amount of funds for humanitarian assistance.
Is the State Department prepared to be able to implement
major supplying of humanitarian needs in regards to the
refugees that have fled as well as the people within Ukraine
that need help? Are we--have the capacity to make sure those
relief funds and relief efforts are implemented immediately?
Ms. Nuland. We are, Senator. In fact, as we saw these
troops mounting on Ukraine's borders, we began working with
U.N. agencies, with the Ukrainians, with neighboring states to
stockpile humanitarian support.
Much of what was initially available was the result of that
stockpiling. We are now continuing to push humanitarian support
into Ukraine as are the U.N. agencies and into Moldova, as I
said, and Poland is also getting a huge amount of international
support as are Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, other countries on
the front line, and we will do more together with our partners
at AID and in the U.N. agencies.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Secretary Nuland, does the United States
recognize Juan Guaido as the president of Venezuela?
Ms. Nuland. We recognize his leadership in Venezuela, yes.
Senator Rubio. Do we recognize him as the president of
Venezuela? Is that not--is that not our official position?
Ms. Nuland. It is.
Senator Rubio. So why would we meet with a dictator,
Nicolas Maduro, without telling Juan Guaido or the ambassador
here in the United States that it was happening? I know you
told him afterwards. Why would we not coordinate with them
beforehand?
Ms. Nuland. We did coordinate with them beforehand. We met
with the opposition before that meeting.
Senator Rubio. You met with the opposition after that
meeting.
Ms. Nuland. I will take that. I think it was the other way
around, Senator.
Senator Rubio. I assure you it was after that meeting and,
certainly, the ambassador feels that way. He was not aware of
it until after that meeting.
You are aware that the Venezuelan oil industry is in
shambles after years of mismanagement, corruption. It is a
personal piggy bank.
They produce about--on a good day about a quarter of what
they used to produce, what we would all remember as Venezuela,
and every informed person in the oil industry will tell you
that if we were to buy all of it--and we cannot because some of
it is already contractually committed--it would be an
insignificant impact on U.S. economy.
It is--but it would be a huge benefit to Maduro. It would
be millions of dollars for his personal piggy bank. So is this
meeting--the secret meeting that occurred this weekend, which
is published everywhere--is this part of a Russia strategy or
is it part of a general pivot in the broader Venezuela matter?
Ms. Nuland. There is zero pivot in our Venezuela strategy,
Senator. First and foremost, and I can only talk about it to
some extent in this setting--I am happy to talk to you about it
in another setting if you would like or after this hearing.
Senator Rubio. It is not--not because it is classified, but
because it is confidential with another government, another
country.
Ms. Nuland. For a number of reasons. First and foremost,
the mission was about visiting and checking on the welfare of
our incarcerated Americans--the CITGO 6 and the other two--and
as you know, we have made regular visits to Caracas for that
purpose.
We were also seeking to get the Venezuelan Government back
to the table with the opposition in the internationally
monitored peace talks, and then there were a number of other
things that we discussed that I can talk to you about in
another----
Senator Rubio. Why did they leave those negotiations? Do
you recall?
Ms. Nuland. They left them because they objected to the
extradition of one of----
Senator Rubio. Alex Saab.
Ms. Nuland. Yes, exactly. One of the----
Senator Rubio. The guy that was helping them to steal gold
and sell it to Iran.
Ms. Nuland. Right. I think you would agree that if they
were willing to come back to the table with the opposition that
would be a good thing for the opposition's goals.
Senator Rubio. Actually, I do not really think it would
matter. Maduro has had habitual--he is a habitual negotiator,
but he never leads to anything. That is why the Vatican will
not even host him anymore. Other countries do not even want to
be involved anymore. He uses negotiations the way Putin does,
habitually, to divide and demoralize his opposition.
I just do not understand why we think that cutting a deal
with Maduro now to lift sanctions, as he yesterday bragged on
television about that meeting and how it is the end of--and as
they mocked Guaido.
That meeting did tremendous damage to the person that we
recognize as the President of Venezuela. It is incredibly
troubling and it would mean nothing. We would notice nothing.
He is more than happy to agree to negotiations. He uses them to
divide the opposition and demoralize them, habitually, the way
Putin has done as well.
I only have a minute left. Let me ask you, does Ukraine
have chemical or biological weapons?
Ms. Nuland. Ukraine has biological research facilities
which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops,
Russian forces, may be seeking to gain control of.
We are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent
any of those research materials from falling into the hands of
Russian forces should they approach.
Senator Rubio. I am sure you are aware that the Russian
propaganda groups are already putting out there all kinds of
information about how they have uncovered a plot by the
Ukrainians to release biological weapons in the country and
with NATO's coordination.
If there is a biological or chemical weapon incident or
attack inside of Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that
100 percent it would be the Russians that would be behind it?
Ms. Nuland. There is no doubt in my mind, Senator, and it
is classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what
they are planning to do themselves.
Senator Rubio. Last question. I am certain that the
Russians were looking at their foreign--their reserves as a way
to buffer sanctions. Do you know how--now that we have
sanctioned the central bank along with others, what--do we have
an idea of what percentage of their reserves are frozen or
inaccessible to them?
Ms. Nuland. Virtually all of them are now frozen. You
notice that the country has been under currency controls for
almost 2 weeks now, and the whole point of putting so many of
these top 10 banks under sanctions is to make it impossible for
them to get access to their cash in hard currency.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
being here and for everything that the State Department and the
Administration is doing to help Ukraine.
As I am sure you are aware, I weighed in with Senator
Portman over the weekend on the importance of providing jets
through Poland for the Ukrainians after we heard from President
Zelensky that that was his number-one request, and I understand
that we are still working on that issue that we had not
coordinated with Poland before they made their announcement. Is
that correct?
Ms. Nuland. Not to my knowledge, and I was in a meeting
where I ought to have heard about that just before I came. I
think that actually was a surprise move by the Poles.
Senator Shaheen. One of the challenges is being able to
backfill any planes that are provided to Ukraine. Is there a
willingness on the part of other--of our European allies to
help support this effort?
Ms. Nuland. Senator, I think what is most important in the
short run with regard to Poland is that they benefit from full
air security from the NATO alliance and, as you know, the U.S.
has increased our support to Poland as has--as have other NATO
allies so--and we are also looking at putting some Patriot
batteries into Poland.
So I think that the main issue is to evaluate together what
Poland's immediate needs are in the context of being a neighbor
of this conflict.
Senator Shaheen. I, certainly, agreed with the line of
questioning that you heard from Senator Rubio about the
disinformation and what--if you want to know what Russia is
planning look at what they are accusing us of.
Ms. Nuland. Exactly.
Senator Shaheen. To what extent are we working with our
allies on the responding to the disinformation that is out
there that Russia is putting out? Because, obviously, the
Baltic countries, Poland, a number of our Eastern European
allies, have long experience with responding to disinformation
on the part of Russia. Are we coordinating that effort in any
way?
Ms. Nuland. Absolutely, Senator. I think you know the State
Department's Global Engagement Center, which you all helped us
stand up and supported, works 24/7 to--with other allies and
partners not just in Europe, but around the world to bring to
light Russian disinformation campaigns and who is pushing them.
We also work with the tech companies to try to take down false
stories and we are working very assiduously on all of that now.
We are also working to try to get truth into Russia in the
context of a complete freeze on independent news going there,
and that is an issue that is of paramount concern to all of us.
Senator Shaheen. So how are we replacing the information
that might have been shared through social media that is no
longer operating in Russia? Are we looking specifically in that
area?
Ms. Nuland. What I would say to you without getting into it
in too much detail there are a large number of Russian
independent journalists who are now active outside the country
who make use of the internet and telegram and other channels to
get truth into Russia. There are huge numbers of influencers
and vloggers and videographers who are themselves working to
push the truth into Russia and I think that is partly why the
Kremlin came down so hard on independent media.
We, ourselves, were doing interviews at all levels with
what was left of Russian independent media and any Russian
state media that would have us.
We are continuing to work with lots of the journalists that
we already had been working with, as have our allies and
partners, and trying to find as many creative ways as we can to
get truth into Russia.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Finally, as you are aware, this--the European Subcommittee
did a hearing on the Black Sea region a month or so ago and one
of the things we heard is that the Administration was working
on a strategy for the Black Sea.
Can you talk about how what Russia has done affects what
that strategy might look like in the future?
Ms. Nuland. I think the greatest concern is the fact that
as Putin has installed more and more weapons and more
sophisticated weapons onto the Crimean Peninsula, he has used
that weaponry to threaten freedom of navigation and to claim
greater and greater parts of the Black Sea, well beyond
territorial limits.
You will remember from the fall--I cannot remember the name
of the British ship that came under fire when it was well in
international waters.
We have a regular rotation of NATO exercises and U.S.
exercises into the Black Sea to show presence and try to keep
the Black Sea open. We are also working on the capability of
all of those states on the littoral--Romania, Bulgaria,
Turkey--and I will say that Turkey has taken some very strong
moves since this conflict began under the Montreux Convention
to deny warships access.
We are working on all of those things, and then the
strategy will, of course, also look at cyber collaboration,
economic integration, fishing, clean Black Sea, all of those
things.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Under Secretary Nuland, welcome. I have done a fair amount
of negotiating in my private sector life. Generally, when a
negotiation proceeds and I realize the negotiating partner is
not negotiating in good faith, I walk away. Actually, always if
I am not proceeding in a good faith negotiation I walk away.
I have never, ever tried to negotiate with somebody who
would refuse to even sit down and talk to me. In fact, is that
not what is happening with the JCPOA negotiations right now
where Iran refuses to meet with our negotiators?
Ms. Nuland. Senator Johnson, we do not sit face-to-face
with Iran, but we have nearly completed this agreement on the
basis of----
Senator Johnson. Okay. Again----
Ms. Nuland. --face-to-face negotiations that they do have
with our European partners. So it is not ideal.
Senator Johnson. Again, it is--but it is true Iran refuses
to meet with us, correct? Is that not an automatic admission
that they are not good faith negotiations? Why would the
Administration--why would President Biden participate in
something like that? That is a charade. It is not a
negotiation.
Ms. Nuland. Senator Johnson, I will say that I, too, have
done a lot of negotiating in my life, and whereas it is not
ideal not to sit in the same room, it can work and proximity
talks have been known to produce very good agreements. Over
time, we will see if we can get there on this one.
Senator Johnson. Okay. Following up on Senator Rubio's
questioning on Venezuela, it sounds like you really were not
talking about buying their oil. Is that true?
Ms. Nuland. Senator, I am happy to talk in some detail
about all the contours of that trip in another setting or,
perhaps, in a little while. We are still in the process of
working on a number of things there. The primary purpose of
that mission was to go see our eight Americans who are
incarcerated.
Senator Johnson. Again, Senator Rubio is more familiar with
what their oil capacities are. It sounds like they really could
not add much to anything we would do. I mean, can you just
state categorically that we will not be buying Venezuelan oil?
We will not--if we are going to buy oil we will buy American
oil? We will not buy from a tyrant like Maduro?
Ms. Nuland. Senator, let me try to put this whole oil issue
in some context, if I may. When we ban Russian oil, as we are--
as the President very clearly did today, that has an impact on
all kinds of things.
We already have a situation, thanks to the international
efforts that we have galvanized where 70 percent of Russian
fuel is stuck. The particular kind of Russian fuel that the
U.S. imports or had been importing was heavy fuel and that is
only produced in a couple of countries around the world.
Whereas we have--we want to ban Russian oil, we also need
to find a way--if we do not want to have major economic impacts
as a result of this war and the squeeze on oil around the
world, we have to find a way to get more capacity into the
system.
Senator Johnson. Okay. Again, you are not ruling out buying
oil from the tyrant Maduro in Venezuela? You are not ruling
that out?
Ms. Nuland. I will come back to you on that question.
Senator Johnson. Okay. We have seen some protests in
Russia. Seems like they are being suppressed pretty
effectively. People are being jailed.
What information are those individuals getting, how are
they getting it, and what is the U.S. doing to make sure that
the Russian people get more of the truth and less Russian
propaganda?
Ms. Nuland. Again, President Putin is scared of what we
were already doing, so scared that he had to choke off the rest
of the--what was left of the free press in Russia.
As I mentioned to Senator Shaheen, we have--we and our
allies have broad and deep relationships with lots of Russian
journalists and lots of Russian brave influencers outside--
operating outside of Russia who are able to push their
information into Russia by various means.
We also have RFE/RL, which, though it has been closed down
in Russia, has a relatively sizable listenership and viewership
through the web, which--through the internet, which the--
President Putin has not yet closed down in Russia.
We are working on lots of different ways to try to get
truth into Russia. I will say that brave Ukrainians, whether
they are individual citizens with their cell phones or
Ukrainian journalists, have documented mass--the same pictures
that we are seeing on our TV are now being packaged by some of
these Russian journalists to get back into Russia and to get
the truth to them despite President Putin's effort to blind his
own people.
Senator Johnson. I hope part of the truth we are going to
be broadcasting to Russia is just how much the oligarchs,
Putin, has stolen from the Russian people. I hope we--as we
confiscate that wealth, which I hope we do, I hope we lay it
out for the Russian people.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Menendez.
Thank you, Under Secretary Nuland, both for this hearing
and for last night's classified briefing. I wish the American
people could see the determined and strong and bipartisan
engagement that I am, at least, experiencing from this
committee and from Congress.
Over the weekend, more than 280 members of Congress took a
call--participated in a call with President Zelensky and, if
anything, I have been encouraged, even surprised at times, by
the unanimity within Congress of support for stronger and
stronger measures against Putin and Putin's Russia for his
unjustified and immoral invasion of Ukraine.
You have served for 32 years, at least, our nation and our
public in the State Department and in other roles, and your
advice and your insight is greatly appreciated and welcome, and
I believe that President Biden's forceful leadership, the
decision to proactively release intelligence in order to make
it clear to Russia we knew what they were planning, to
proactively invest time and effort and diplomatic resources in
rebuilding our ties with the EU, with NATO, with other vital
partners laid the groundwork for what has been in just 12 days
a striking, swift, broad action by the West to impose crippling
sanctions on Russia and Russia's economy.
I am very concerned about the humanitarian situation in
Ukraine. The United Nations is planning for 5 million refugees
and 7 million internally-displaced people. There are, as of
today, 2 million Ukrainians who have fled the country, a
million of them children. That is more in 12 days than fled
Syria in 3 years.
I am hopeful that this week we will pass an emergency
supplemental for Ukraine that will be no less than $12 billion
and that more than half of that will be dedicated to the
humanitarian crisis.
Please help us understand. The U.N. is playing a key role--
the World Food Programme, UNHCR--as well as, of course, USAID
and some other impressive private groups like World Central
Kitchen are responding quickly. Our partners and allies like
Poland, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, as you have mentioned, are
responding.
What more can we and should we do to meet this humanitarian
crisis, which is coming on top of refugee and food insecurity
crises in a dozen other countries around the world?
Ms. Nuland. Senator Coons, I think you put your finger on
it that, unfortunately, at 2 million refugees now we may not
have even half of what we will see here.
What I will say is that they are fleeing into, by and
large, European Union countries who are relatively prosperous
and are doing a spectacular job in their own right of welcoming
them, managing them.
EU agencies are also--EU ECHO and others--working actively
with the U.N. and a large number of them are also going to
relatives who already live in Europe.
That might be just the beginning of this, and I think as it
gets worse we will have more and more of the infirm, of the
young, of those who have special needs.
What we are trying to do is to ensure that we are
continuing to get humanitarian assistance into Ukraine. You
have seen the horrendous pictures of people sleeping week after
week now in subway stations or in their bombed out houses, et
cetera. The needs there appear to be moving from early on need
for hygiene products and health products and those kinds of
things to now needing foodstuffs and other things.
Then we are trying to help Poland not only with its ability
to flow through refugees, but with its border management
because those--that first day as they come off the border is
where it is most congested, and we are----
Senator Coons. Senator Shaheen and I were in Poland just 2
weeks ago----
Ms. Nuland. So you saw----
Senator Coons. --and are impressed with the level of
partnership. Let me just, in closing, mention this supplemental
will include something many of us have supported, more funding
for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to try and get into Russia
and Ukraine truthful, accurate reporting.
I am a co-sponsor as well of a resolution that is
bipartisan condemning Russian war crimes and calling on
international bodies like the ICC to investigate, and I want
just to be reassured that we are doing everything we can to
document the atrocities against civilians being committed by
Russians and to hold Russia's military and political leadership
and, specifically, Vladimir Putin accountable for crimes
against humanity.
Ms. Nuland. To say their, it is Ukrainians who are doing a
spectacular job as they confront these horrific incidents in
getting documentation and ensuring that they get that out to
the world, and we are preparing, as an international community,
to respond to all of that and to deal with it and to hold
President--to hold Putin accountable as well as those who
helped him prosecute this war.
Senator Coons. Thank you, and thank you for your service.
The Chairman. Senator Romney.
Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Secretary. I appreciate your willingness to provide this
information to us today and again yesterday.
With regards to the aircraft that are now under U.S.
control, apparently--MiG aircraft that will be in Ramstein and
it will be--able to be sent to Ukraine--I know there will be
hand wringing and concern about what might happen and how
Russia might respond.
I did receive a note from a friend who said this. He said,
it seems to me that this war will be over when Putin is more
worried about what NATO might do than NATO being worried about
what Putin might do.
I know that all things associated with this conflict have a
certain degree of risk, but at the same time there are people
dying and there is, I think, a worldwide clamoring, including
by our people here, to provide support and help to the people
of Ukraine and to help end this outrage.
You spent a lot of your career looking at Mr. Putin and
trying to understand his reasoning, perhaps, not his
psychology. There are a number of people that said he is not
going to invade Ukraine. He realizes that is a terrible
decision, would not be in his best interest. Nonetheless, he
did.
There are others that are writing, oh, it was because we
sort of opened the door to him--to Ukraine joining NATO that
precipitated this. What is your view? As you look at Putin, why
did he decide to go in? What precipitated this?
I do not just mean this immediate action, but, I mean, why
did he make such an extraordinary investment of his country
with such enormous repercussions? What drove this? I say that
not because I am just curious for the past, but to try and get
a sense of where we might be headed.
Ms. Nuland. Senator, I think, obviously, those questions
should best be directed to Mr. Putin. I will give you a few
thoughts here anyway.
I think, over the years, President Putin's imperial
ambition has grown and he is dissatisfied with the last 30
years of Russian history and has longed for some time to be the
guy that helps recreate the Soviet Union, the fall of which, he
said, was one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century.
Imagine that, the 20th century.
I think he has had that ambition. I think in the last
couple of years he has been particularly obsessed with this and
particularly consumed. He has created, as you know, a whole bed
of lies about how the U.S. would use Ukraine as a springboard
to Russia or that NATO would, and he has, frankly, made clear
in the last couple of days that he does not actually think that
Ukraine is an independent country from Russia.
I think his interior mind is now out there for everybody to
see. That is what makes me worried that not only do we have to
ensure that this Ukraine gambit is a strategic failure for
Putin for Ukraine's sake, but also for all of the other
countries in the region, and his appetite has only grown with
the eating. We cannot allow this to stand.
Senator Romney. Do you have a sense of what the end game
might be for Putin? Because losing is not acceptable, I am
sure, in his psyche. Is there an off ramp? Are there some
options that you consider that might be ways for this conflict
to end?
Ms. Nuland. The way this conflict will end is when Putin
realizes that this adventure has put his own leadership
standing at risk with his own military, with his own people,
that he is hemorrhaging the lives of the people of Russia, the
army of Russia, and their future to his own vain ambition, and
he will have to change course or the Russian people take
matters into their own hands.
From the U.S. perspective, the end game is the strategic
defeat of President Putin in this adventure.
Senator Romney. Would China have the capacity to influence
his decisions at this stage and are they trying to do so?
Ms. Nuland. The Chinese like to say that they are neutral
in this conflict. As we discussed a little bit yesterday, we
believe that it is incumbent on all of us and our leadership
is, certainly, involved in this and so are many of our allies
and partners.
I think you know that President Scholz and President
Macron--Chancellor Scholz and President Macron talked to Xi
Jinping just today to impress upon the Chinese that neutrality
is not an option here, that this is a violation of
international humanitarian law, violation of sovereignty, that
they should not want to stand with somebody who would exact
this kind of brutality on his own people, that they should be
pushing Putin to stop, that they should be pushing for
humanitarian corridors, that they should be thinking about
their own strategic and economic interests as this war ramps up
energy prices and makes it harder for them, ramps up global
commodity prices. As you know, they just reported the slowest
growth in some 15 years of their own.
They have an opportunity for leadership here and we are all
urging them to take it.
Senator Romney. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
The Chairman. Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your opening comments. We are
all standing today in awe of the bravery and heroism of the
Ukrainian people, of their government, and I am so pleased that
this committee and this Congress has, by and large, been able
to come together in our support for their efforts.
Madam Secretary, I want to thank you personally because I
do not know that there is an American diplomat who has fought
more vigorously for Ukraine, for Ukrainian sovereignty, for
Ukrainian independence over the course of the last decade than
you have.
First, second, and third, we thank the Ukrainian people for
what they are doing right now on behalf of global democracy. It
is the U.S.-Ukrainian partnership--an economic partnership, a
political partnership, a military partnership--that you have
helped forge, I think, that has been contributory to their
ability to stand up and defend themselves. So I am grateful for
the work that you have done and for your friendship and your
candor, as always, time after time with this committee.
Let me just say, I think it is a curious decision by Poland
to announce their gift of several $100 million worth of jets to
the United States without alerting us first, especially since,
frankly, they would be the more natural direct partner with
Ukraine, given that these are MiG jets that the Poles know how
to use and will, ultimately, have to help transfer to the
Ukrainians, and I look forward to consultations that we will
have with them about their recent announcement.
I did want to turn just for a moment to some of the
questions that have been raised about Russia's role within the
talks inside Vienna, and let me just ask you a pretty simple
predicate question to make sure we sort of level set what this
committee needs to worry about.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not the only security
challenge posed to the United States today, correct?
Ms. Nuland. Correct.
Senator Murphy. Listen, I, frankly, think it would be
national security malpractice for the United States to kick
down the road another 6 months a nuclear deal with Iran, given
what this Congress has learned about the progress of the
Iranian nuclear program since the withdrawal.
To give it another 6 months is to, essentially, put Iran on
the doorstep of a nuclear weapon. So because you have been
asked questions already about the particulars of these
negotiations, maybe just draw us back for a moment and talk to
us for a minute about the consequences of not entering--
reentering a deal with the Iranians and, in particular, the
prospects for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East to be set
off by a sort of final failure of the United States and Iran to
get back to a diplomatic agreement.
Ms. Nuland. Thanks for the opportunity, Senator, and thanks
for your very kind words--my home state senator, we should
admit here and a long friend.
Let me just say that, as you put it, the last thing we need
on top of Putin's bloody war is a nuclear-armed Iran and, you
know, what we can say in this setting is that nuclear
capability of the kind that we do not want to see could come to
Iran in a matter of weeks and months if we do not get them back
into this agreement.
That is not good for the planet, and to have both Iran and
Russia able to threaten all of us in that way would be
catastrophic at this time, not to mention what they might do if
they teamed up.
We have got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same
time and that is what we are trying to do, and we do appreciate
the fact that we have been able to come up to the Congress
again and again and again to try to work on these issues
together.
Senator Murphy. So just spend the last moment here talking
about what Russia's role is at that table, what their equities
are. I know many of my colleagues are worried about the
benefits that may accrue to Russia through an agreement.
How do we workshop their role in these negotiations?
Ms. Nuland. I remember earlier in my career working with
the Russians during the Bush administration and we were
concerned about Iran's nuclear program, and they would say they
cannot do it.
It is not going to happen. Then a switch flipped at some
point in the mid odd years where they began to understand that
Iran with a nuclear weapon could threaten them, and that is
what got them involved in working with us and bringing China
along in this negotiation.
They have been--they were partners in the first JCPOA and
they have been actually very helpful in trying to get us back
to where we are now, first and foremost, because a nuclear-
armed Iran is closer to them than they are to us and the range
of the weapons that Iran would have, first, could hit them
before they could hit us.
That said, they also have the--some unique capacity to
downgrade uranium, et cetera, so one of the roles that they
would play in this deal would be to take higher grade uranium
fuel that is only appropriate for weapons and blend it down so
that it could be used in reactors, et cetera.
There have been--we have had some questions about whether
Russia stands to gain financially from this deal. Russia has
relatively small trade relations with Iran so it is primarily
in the interest of their own national security and their own
concerns about a nuclear Iran that they participate in all of
this and offer to be the blender down of the fuel.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Just an observation--they are not
the only country who can do that.
Senator Portman.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Nuland, unfortunately, you were right about Putin
and so here we are. We have a brutal, illegal, totally
unprovoked unjustified attack on our ally, a democratic
country, a sovereign country, and tonight, as we sit here in
Ukraine they are continuing to bomb civilian targets.
They shelled civilians who chose to walk down the
humanitarian corridors that they had agreed to. They killed
people who were on these corridors.
We have to remember this is something that requires us,
along with our allies--all countries, really--certainly, all
freedom-loving countries who care about what might happen to
them to step up and do more.
I appreciate what was said today, but we have got to do
more, both in terms of military assistance and in terms of
sanctions, and it is a matter of days or weeks, not months,
that we have to do more because it will be too late otherwise.
I think Putin miscalculated. He miscalculated about the
resolve of the Ukrainian people and the competence of their
military. He miscalculated about the resolve of the alliance to
respond.
Let us get these planes into the country. I think it is a
good sign that today the Polish Government sent out a release
saying, you can have these MiGs. There are 29 of them. By the
way, I wish they would also provide the 18 SU-25s, some of
which are dual bomber fighters, because they could use those,
too. I wish Slovakia would do the same thing with their 11 MiGs
and Bulgaria has 13 MiGs, as far as we know. Maybe more.
I hope that you will commit today, and I suppose this is in
the form of a question--do you commit to do everything possible
to make this arrangement work, whatever it takes?
The response that I have gotten from some in the
Administration is we are not sure--it might make Putin mad. He
has invaded his neighbor and he is killing innocent people, and
everything makes him mad. I mean, he has said the sanctions are
an act of war. He gets mad over the Javelins and the Stingers.
Are you going to do everything you possibly can to get
these airplanes that the Ukrainians want badly? We have heard
it directly from the president. We have heard it from other
Ukrainian officials.
Can we get these planes into Ukraine to begin to provide
some protection for these innocent civilians?
Ms. Nuland. Senator, as I committed yesterday, I will
continue to convey the very strong bipartisan view of this
committee that these planes need to get to Ukraine.
As we discussed in another setting, there are a number of
factors to consider here and there are some mixed views among
allies and even within the Administration.
Obviously, I will convey your strong views and the strong
views of everybody that we have spoken today on this issue.
Senator Portman. My time is clicking here, but it is not
really a concern to me that there is some disagreement in the
Administration because all it requires is for the President and
his team to decide this is the way we are going to go.
Finally, the oil was blocked today or will be blocked. That
is great, but it took a long time. Took too long.
On sanctions, so many questions for you. The most favored
nation--I think we should use our Article 21 ability under the
WTO to revoke that. If you have thoughts on that, I would
appreciate it. We should seize assets, not just freeze assets.
Specific question about U.S. sanctions against Russia's
biggest banks, including VTB Bank. They do not apply to energy
transactions, we are told, until June 24. Is that true?
Ms. Nuland. All of the things that you listed are things
that we are looking at. As I said in my opening statement, we
are not done with sanctions if he is not done with this war,
and we will continue to escalate. You named a number of the
things that we are and will look at.
With regard to VTB, as you know, part of the strength--the
strength of sanctions is when we can do them multilaterally
and, particularly, transatlantically with our European allies
and partners in Japan.
Because of the energy dependency of a number of our
European allies, we did agree to a phase-in of some of the VTB
sanctions to allow energy processing for Europe and that will
fade out over time.
Senator Portman. June 24--why that late date? By June 24,
it may be too late.
Ms. Nuland. It was part of our building of this package
with the Europeans to have a 90-day wind-down on this energy
carve out so that is--was part of the deal that we struck to
maintain unity.
Senator Portman. My time has expired. So many other
questions. Penetrating the Kremlin's information firewall, it
seems to me, is a critical step here to allow the Russian
people to know the truth.
Ms. Nuland. I agree with you, Senator.
Senator Portman. Anything we can do in that regard to be
helpful I would like you to follow up with us on that, please.
Ms. Nuland. I will.
Senator Portman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, thank you,
Secretary Nuland.
I add my words to those of my colleagues to just commend
the cooperation of the United States and the leadership of the
United States with other nations.
If the world wanted to see what U.S. leadership in
assembling a coalition of democracies could produce, I believe
the world has seen that, and for anyone who has questioned the
value of alliances or NATO, I think they understand it now.
My colleagues have asked many of my questions so this is
maybe more of a comment. There is 195 countries in the world.
Two have Jewish heads of state--Israel and Ukraine. Two other
nations--Panama and Latvia--have heads of state who have Jewish
family members.
Vladimir Zelensky is a particular case. His great
grandfather and many siblings were murdered in the Holocaust.
His grandfather fought with the Red Army against the Nazis.
Yet, he has been subject to three assassination attempts,
by public reporting, by this invasion, by war criminal Vladimir
Putin, and the Russian missile strikes have hit Babyn Yar, the
ravine in Kyiv that was the site of the largest single massacre
of Jews during World War II in September of 1941.
I mention these facts because you were asked by Senator
Romney how Vladimir Putin was justifying his actions and you
said he has kind of put it out there, and one of the things
that is amazing--this is the person we are dealing with--he
said that this invasion was needed to denazify Ukraine.
So he is attempting to decapitate a government that is led
by one of two Jewish heads of state in the world who is the
survivor of a family of those who were killed in the Holocaust
and he is doing it in a way where he is putting at risk sacred
sites that are known throughout the world and across history
for the massacre of Jews during World War II.
This is the person that we are dealing with. Just that
simple phrase ``I am trying to denazify Ukraine'' suggests that
he is thinking about this as if we are living in 1945 or 1941,
rather than 2020.
He is willing to repeat the big lie, ``I am going to
denazify this country'' by killing one of two Jewish heads of
state in the world and decapitating the government, repeating
the big lie over and over and over again, and even willing to
attack the sites like Babyn Yar and also there is Russia
attacks in Odessa going on, and the massacre of Jews in Odessa
was even larger later in the war than the massacres at Babyn
Yar in 1941.
We have got to win. Democracies have to win this. The
challenge, I think, that we are really grappling with is that
the strategies that this Administration has put together with
other democracies are showing great resolve and the Ukrainian
people are showing even greater resolve, and there are early
signs of resistance in Russia--runs on ATMs and banks and
protests, despite repeated arrests that are ongoing.
Nations that we would not have expected to participate with
NATO--Sweden and Finland, non-NATO members--delivering weapons
to Ukraine. Germany, which has had this post-World War II
policy of not putting weapons into a war zone, willing to
deliver weapons into Ukraine. Moldova, which has much to fear,
announcing just last week that they desperately want to be
members of the EU.
What Vladimir Putin did in the 2014 invasion of Ukraine and
the establishment of these puppet states in Donetsk and
Luhansk, everyone could look at those states and see the grim
Stalinist camps they were becoming from what had been thriving
cities and realize, we do not want any part of that.
Vladimir Putin is chasing many nations that were not
previously leaning toward the EU or leaning toward NATO. He has
done the best possible job to chase them in to a Western
orientation.
We need to continue to harvest that. Yet, the challenge of
all of that is that may not be enough to change Vladimir
Putin's calculation. There does not seem to be easy off ramps,
and we talked about this during the classified hearing that we
had yesterday and I do not need you to comment further on it.
If the world wants to know the character of this individual
there are a lot of ways to measure it. Someone who would
attempt to decapitate the government of one of two nations in
the world led by a Jewish head of state whose family perished
in the Holocaust and claiming that the motivation behind that
is denazification of Ukraine this tells you the kind of person
we are dealing with.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Senator Young.
Senator Young. Welcome, Under Secretary.
I wanted to follow up on the enquiries of the ranking
member and Senator Murphy. Like them, I, too, am extremely
concerned with reports Russia is attempting to link Iran deal
negotiations to sanctions imposed on Russia for its invasion.
This situation looks to me more like Russia is trying to
blackmail the United States, hoping the Administration is going
to sacrifice Ukraine in a misguided effort to finalize an Iran
deal at all costs.
Reports indicate that Lavrov has requested written
guarantees from the U.S. with regard to sanctions relief for
transactions between Russia and Iran for the negotiations to
continue as a precondition for closing out those negotiations.
My question is this, Under Secretary. Has the
Administration provided any written guarantees to Russia that
its trade investment or military cooperation with Iran will not
be subject to sanctions?
Ms. Nuland. No.
Senator Young. Thank you. Has anything about your
negotiations with the Russians changed as a result of their
invasion of Ukraine?
Ms. Nuland. Senator, in this open setting, I will simply
say that you are right, Russia is trying to up the ante and
broaden its demands with regard to the JCPOA, and we are not
playing ``Let's Make a Deal.''
Senator Young. I look forward to following up this line of
inquiry in a closed setting. Before I move on, in light of the
gravity of this dynamic, how can the Administration negotiate
in good faith with Russia in these Iranian talks? Would not any
announced deal be immediately undermined by Russia's ongoing
behavior?
Ms. Nuland. Senator, we are not negotiating with Iran--with
Russia vis-a-vis Iran. As we talked about earlier, Russia, for
its own reasons, has chosen to be a participant in these
negotiations because it wants to see Iran's ability to get a
nuclear weapon constrained.
This is one of those rare instances where we have the same
strategic objective and, I would argue, as I did earlier, that
for us that strategic objective becomes even more important
because we do not want a nuclear Iran and a rampaging Putin in
Ukraine at the same time.
Senator Young. I am not sure we still do have the same
strategic objective. That argument might have been made until
just the recent days when the Iranian--rather, the Russian
negotiator put himself on the internet, indicating that his
position was, indeed, shaped not by--if I recall, he said that
his position was shaped by the current circumstances in
Ukraine--the recent developments.
Is that accurate, that the dynamics have changed on account
of this intervention? If so, does Russian participation
undermine the negotiations?
Ms. Nuland. What I can say in this open setting is that
there may be some in Russia seeking to get extra benefits for
their cooperation and participation in seeking to get Iran back
into the JCPOA, but they are not going to be successful.
Senator Young. Thank you, Under Secretary.
I am going to move on just another couple of questions here
I will bundle together in light of time.
China is watching this entire Ukraine conflict with close
interest and, surely, seeking to make the most of the
situation.
Can you provide more details on the Saturday call between
Secretary Blinken and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang?
Specifically, what did Foreign Minister Wang mean when he
stated that the situation in Ukraine has, ``reached a point
that China did not wish to see''?
Ms. Nuland. I am going to let the Chinese side speak for
themselves. I will simply say what I said earlier in this
hearing, that our intention in our regular engagement with
China, including Secretary Blinken's call with his counterpart,
was to underscore that this war is not good for China--that we
want to see China use its influence with Russia to get this war
ended, and, at a minimum, to help get these humanitarian
corridors going and that if they are concerned about their
economic situation, as they should well be with the lowest
growth rates in 15 years, that this war is contributing to it.
Senator Young. I am out of time. Thank you, Under
Secretary.
Ms. Nuland. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
great work, Madam Secretary.
As you may remember, you and I discussed in a hearing
before this committee in December the fact that the United
States cannot preach temperance from a bar tool when it comes
to Russian energy.
At the same time as many voices were railing against Europe
for their reliance on Russian natural gas, American fossil fuel
companies were importing nearly $20 billion of Russian oil just
last year.
At that hearing we discussed the fact that American
consumers were unwittingly financing the ill-gotten gains of
Putin and his inner circle, the same ``oil-ligarchs''
responsible for enabling Putin's human rights abuses within
Russia and now the unjustified invasion of Ukraine.
President Biden made the right decision today and I applaud
him for that. Now we need to make it a permanent ban to build
on the steps that the President announced today.
We have to permanently wean ourselves off of corrupt
foreign oil and gas by investing in a clean energy revolution.
I introduced legislation, the SPIGOT Act, last week to do just
that and I think we should enact it so that we have that
permanent ban.
Madam Secretary, do you agree that there would be value in
a comprehensive United States Government report that lifts the
veil on oil and gas oil-ligarchs and their involvement in a
vast array of Russian human rights abuses?
Ms. Nuland. Senator, I love the word ``oil-ligarchs.'' It
sounds like a very good idea to me.
Senator Markey. Excellent. The reality is, though, that the
only way that we can do that and make it sustainable is if we
can prevent these fossil-fueled conflicts by ending our own
addiction to oil.
It happened in the Middle East. It is happening here, and
President Biden acknowledged in making today's announcement
that we cannot wait for big oil to do the right thing or we
will be waiting for as long as it takes for carbon to become a
fossil fuel. We have to act as a Senate in order to take those
steps.
On the question of the nuclear power plants in Russia, how
is the United States supporting efforts by the International
Atomic Energy Agency to ensure the continued safe operation of
all 15 Ukrainian nuclear plants?
Ms. Nuland. Senator Merkley, I think you know that the IAEA
is trying to negotiate some rules of the road between Russia
and Ukraine as Russia tries to seize physical control of all of
these plants even as it insists that the Ukrainian operators
continue to operate the plants for them.
I think the attack on Zaporizhzhia was a wakeup call for
not only Ukrainians and Russians, but for the whole world about
the danger of close combat near these facilities.
We are strongly supporting this effort to negotiate safe
practices and, as you know, at Zaporizhzhia the Ukrainian
operators performed magnificently in closing down all, but that
last bit of power that is needed to keep the core from melting
down such that it was less subject to an accident.
I think that also speaks to all the work that they have
done since Chernobyl on nuclear safety. They are some of the
best in the world now, frankly, with our support over many
decades.
Senator Markey. President Biden nominated Laura Holgate to
be his ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Given the potential threat to the safe operation of Ukraine's
reactors and Ukraine's overall energy security, how important
is it that Ambassador Holgate be confirmed by the United States
Senate without delay, given what we are seeing in Ukraine right
now?
Ms. Nuland. Extremely important. Laura is a friend of 20
years and an excellent specialist.
Senator Markey. Thank you. I agree with you, and I hope we
can get it on the committee's agenda very promptly.
How concerned are you that Ukraine's other nuclear
facilities could be in the crossfire or be subject to a
deliberate attack?
Ms. Nuland. I think we are all concerned that the Russians
want to gain physical and military control, at least of the
outskirts and so, again, we are continuing to work with the
Ukrainians on safe procedures and we are supporting this IAEA
initiative to get some rules of the road going. We will see if
the Russians do more than pay lip service to it.
Senator Markey. I agree with you 100 percent. We just have
to move very, very rapidly if we are going to deal with these
threats as they are unfolding.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Under Secretary Nuland, thank you for testifying today.
We are sitting here watching the most significant military
conflict in Europe unfold since 1945--since the end of World
War II, and I am sorry to say that this war, I believe, is the
direct result of repeated mistakes made by President Biden and
the Biden administration, two mistakes in particular: number
one, the disastrous withdrawal in Afghanistan and surrender to
the Taliban that emboldened our enemies across the globe, but
then, number two, with respect to Russia and Ukraine, very
specific mistakes. You and I have talked at great length about
Nord Stream 2.
As you know, this committee and the Congress won a
bipartisan victory stopping Nord Stream 2 in 2019. I authored
that legislation.
As a result, Putin was deterred from invading Ukraine. When
Joe Biden became President, he came in bound and determined to
surrender the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Russia and Putin,
notwithstanding the enormous risks that came from it.
When President Biden surrendered to Putin on Nord Stream 2,
waived the sanctions that had been passed by Congress, at that
time Ukraine told us, if you do this Russia will invade
Ukraine.
At that time, Poland told us, if you do this Russia will
invade Ukraine. At that time, I told the Administration and
others on this committee told the Administration if you do this
Russia will invade Ukraine. We will see tanks in the streets of
Kyiv.
I wish those predictions had proven wrong. This weekend all
hundred senators were on a video conference call with President
Zelensky from Ukraine. President Zelensky told us if the United
States Government had put sanctions in place last year on Nord
Stream 2, Putin would not have invaded Ukraine.
Yet, the Administration was bound and determined to
continue surrendering to Russia even as Russian troops massed
on the border of Ukraine, so much so that the White House put
political pressure and forced 44 Democrats to vote to support
Russia and Putin just weeks before this invasion.
Now, after the invasion, finally, once there were Russian
troops invading Ukraine, finally then the Biden administration
was dragged kicking and screaming to implementing sanctions on
Nord Stream 2. As soon as you did, Nord Stream 2 declared
bankruptcy and fired its employees.
In my judgment, Putin does not believe any promise from Joe
Biden to maintain sanctions on Nord Stream 2 is credible. I
think Putin is gambling that when the crisis passes the
sanctions will be lifted and Nord Stream 2 will be turned on.
I have introduced legislation to make Nord Stream 2
sanctions permanent. In your judgment, do you believe sanctions
on Nord Stream 2 should be permanent or should the pipeline be
allowed to be turned on?
Ms. Nuland. Senator, I think Nord Stream 2 is now dead, and
as you have said, it is a hunk of metal at the bottom of the
sea. I do not think it will ever be revived.
Senator Cruz. So you do not think it will. So let me
reiterate my question. Should the sanctions be permanent as a
matter of law, in your judgment?
Ms. Nuland. I do not think it matters one way or the other.
I think the pipeline will never come back.
Senator Cruz. You are testifying you have no objections
then and State has no objections to Congress making the
sanctions permanent?
Ms. Nuland. We have not looked at what this would do. I do
not think it is relevant one way or the other.
Senator Cruz. It is relevant because Biden waived them once
in the face of massive congressional pressure----
Ms. Nuland. Senator, if I may----
Senator Cruz:--and put politics ahead of national security,
and I believe Putin believes Biden will do it again.
Ms. Nuland. Senator----
Senator Cruz. When the Administration announced sanctions
on Russia, it glaringly exempted energy from those sanctions.
This morning, the Biden administration listened to calls
for me and from many others to finally include a boycott of
Russian oil and gas. That was the right thing to do, but it
should have been done at the outset.
Europe continues to rely on Russian energy. In your
judgment, will our European allies follow suit and also boycott
Russian energy?
Ms. Nuland. As you have made clear, Senator, and as we all
know, the Europeans have a much higher level of dependence
today to heat their homes, to keep the lights on. They are----
Senator Cruz. Is the Biden administration pressing the
Europeans----
Ms. Nuland. May I finish?
Senator Cruz. --to end their reliance on Russia and is the
Biden administration pressing them to rely on alternative
sources, including American energy, which is abundant and does
not fuel a dictator like Putin?
Ms. Nuland. Among the things that we have done as this
crisis was emerging and since it started was to ship more
American LNG and to create more global alternatives to Putin's
gas going into Europe, as you know, including working with
our----
Senator Cruz. There are six applications pending with the
Biden administration to export LNG. None of them have been
approved. Do you have any expectations that any of them will
be?
Ms. Nuland. The European LNG terminals right now are at
full capacity to receive.
Senator Cruz. Okay. You are not answering my question.
Ms. Nuland. One of the things that we are pressing Europe--
--
Senator Cruz. Are you going to answer the question?
Ms. Nuland. Can I try to answer the question?
Senator Cruz. You can answer the question.
Ms. Nuland. Can I try to answer the question?
We have taken advantage of this tragedy to, again, speak to
Europe about its over reliance on Russian energy and to say to
them----
Senator Cruz. The question was simple. Do you anticipate
the applications to export LNG will be approved? You are not
answering that question.
Ms. Nuland. I, frankly, do not do LNG licensing. I expect
that licenses will be approved for as much LNG as can be
shipped.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Nuland. That is what I expect. I do not have
responsibility for that so I do not actually know how it works.
Senator, I have to say to you President Putin was going to
launch this vicious, brutal war with or without Nord Stream 2.
Senator Cruz. That is not what Zelensky told us.
Ms. Nuland. That is my opinion.
Senator Cruz. That is also not what you said when you
testified before the Senate.
The Chairman. The time of the senator has expired.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Ambassador Nuland, thank you for being
with us today.
Reflecting on the fact that the people of Ukraine in 2004
launched the Orange Revolution to, essentially, say an unfair
rigged election had been held and insisted on a new election
being held and they got that, that new election, and 10 years
later the people of Ukraine launched the Revolution of Dignity
and the result was that the leader, Yanukovych, who was
subjecting Ukraine to the shadow of Russia, fled the country
and was impeached, and in 2019, a patriot named Zelensky
proceeded to win by a landslide campaigning against corruption.
Time after time, the people of the Ukraine have said, we
choose government by the people, not the Russian model of
government by a dictator, and perhaps nothing is more
threatening to Putin than having a neighbor--a close cousin, if
you will--choosing government by the people.
So here we are today with Putin determined to crush
Ukraine, engaging in siege tactics, bombardment, and shelling
of population centers. Untold numbers of civilians will die. A
thousand residences have been destroyed. Two hundred schools
have been destroyed.
I anticipate, but I ask this as a question, that we are
going to continue to see this siege strategy by Russia
attacking population centers, killing civilians, and driving
millions of people out of the country.
Is that a fair expectation?
Ms. Nuland. I do not think that Russia's tactics will
become less brutal, Senator Merkley. I worry that they will
become more brutal as they become more desperate that their
vicious military campaign is slowing, is stalling, is not
succeeding because, as you said, the Ukrainian people again and
again and again have stood up for their freedom, have stood up
for their choice and now, when it is a matter of life and
death, they are doing it again, and not just for them, but for
all of us.
Senator Merkley. Seeing the determination of the Ukrainian
people to resist Russian strategy and Russian oppression, it
seems like we can anticipate that Russia will face a
longstanding insurgency of all kinds, of proceeding to smuggle
weapons in, anti-tank weapons, anti-plane weapons, and
improvised explosive devices and in combination we are seeing
the current sanctions having a huge impact on the Russian
economy.
Is the combination, the fact that Russia is going to face
an enormously determined insurgency and crushing economy give
us hope that there is a deal to be struck or is--with time, or
is Putin so determined to bet his presidency, his office, on
crushing Ukraine that this--there is nothing that is going to
stop this train until he is removed?
Ms. Nuland. Senator Merkley, only President Putin knows if
sanity will ever prevail inside his own head. It is clear that
Russia will lose this conflict. Whether they lose it quickly or
whether they lose it extremely slowly, it is only--it is a
matter of time.
The problem is that if this can be lost quickly, many,
many, many lives will be saved, which is why we have to
continue to pour on the economic pressure. We have to continue
to support the defensive needs of the Ukrainian people and help
them to resist because, as we have said, they are fighting for
themselves, but they are also fighting for us and our way of
life.
Senator Merkley. Our strategy is maximum support for the
Ukrainian patriots in their opposition to Russian military
occupation and forces, massive humanitarian assistance, massive
economic pressure on the Government of Russia, and I fully
support that threefold strategy and just to accentuate the need
to do everything we can to coordinate the world to support it,
and I praise the Biden administration for having brought
together such a significant coalition of freedom-loving nations
to be engaged in supporting Ukraine.
So I just want to close by noting this is such a
representation of the challenge we face worldwide and the
vision of authoritarian control of people with control of the
press, control of freedom speech.
We see Russia crushing every form of free press in its
nation. Shutting down every form of social media can prevent
the Russian people from knowing what is going on, and then we
see Ukraine, which embraced government of, by, and for the
people.
We have to stand with the people of Ukraine, and thank you
very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to
see you again. Thanks for spending time with us in closed
session yesterday.
Earlier today Ukrainian President Zelensky asked the
Parliament of the United Kingdom to designate Russia as a
terrorist country. Is Russia a state sponsor of terrorism?
Ms. Nuland. Senator, we had not put it that way before. I
have to tell you that every day that goes by, as they commit
these egregious brutal acts on the ground, it is something we
should look at.
Senator Barrasso. One of the things we visited about a
little bit last night in closed session--I want to go to an
open session now--and that is the Russians involved with the
Iranian nuclear deal and negotiations there.
It does seem, as I mentioned, in Congress, to me, that we
would be dealing with Russia as a--somewhat of a partner in
coming up with an Iran deal at the same time what we see is
this brutal, terrorist murderer, Vladimir Putin, killing
people.
So I have a lot of problems with that decision regularly. I
see the Russian envoy recently bragged about how much they
helped Iran get much more than they would have expected in this
Iranian deal with the United States, and Ulyanov stated,
``Realistically speaking, Iran got more than, frankly, I
expected or others expected.'' So that is from us, the United
States.
The people on this side of the aisle are not for this Iran
deal at all. We think it is a mistake for our nation and our
nation's security. Reports indicate Russia worked to secure
Iran's rights for nuclear energy, to--and to remove sanctions.
So how much money is Iran going to get from these proposed
sanctions relief as part of the Biden administration Iran deal
that they are cutting now while Russia is in the middle of
attacking Ukraine?
Ms. Nuland. As you know, Senator, if Iran comes back to the
JCPOA and we come back into the deal and stop their nuclear
development and stop their ability to get a bomb in the short
run, they will get access to some of the funds that have been
frozen. That is part of the deal.
That said, Russia is not doing this out of the goodness of
its heart. It is doing it because it, too, worries about an
Iran that lives closer to Russia than they do to us having a
bomb that could threaten them.
Senator Barrasso. When John Kerry negotiated the last deal
he said, well, of course, some of this money is going to be
used for terrorism and we know that Iran did use some of the
money for terrorism.
Do you expect some of this sanctions relief is going to be
funneled to terrorist proxies and activities by Iran?
Ms. Nuland. We are working as hard as we can in the
crafting of this deal to ensure that the money is used for the
needs of the Iranian people and not for external aggression.
Senator Barrasso. In terms of the Black Sea, and as we had
a chance to look at some maps last night and we think about an
overview of the Black Sea, I think about what NATO did very
successfully with the Baltic Air Policing Mission to safeguard
the integrity of the NATO alliance members a number of years
ago in terms of airspace, I am wondering if that could serve as
a model for efforts to maintain a robust NATO presence in the
Black Sea.
What are your views on NATO establishing a Black Sea
maritime patrol mission--a regular rotational maritime presence
in the Black Sea?
Ms. Nuland. I, personally, have been in favor of it for a
long time and, as you know, NATO has a regular exercise
schedule, as does the U.S.
I think what we have not done is taken appropriate account
of what it meant when Putin seized Crimea and then began
putting all kinds of advanced weaponry on it and that gave him
the capacity to close aspects of the Black Sea in a way that we
cannot tolerate, and we need to get back to that business.
Senator Barrasso. In terms of energy security and the
decision made by the President today, which I agree with the
decision, I think that energy to replace what we have gotten
from Russia ought to be coming from the United States.
I think it is a mistake to go and ask Iran for more energy,
a mistake to go to Venezuela for more energy, which is what
seems to be what this Administration is doing, going from one
dictator thug to another.
Can I get your thoughts on that?
Ms. Nuland. Senator Barrasso, in the context of, first of
all, high energy prices even before we got into this conflict,
then the impact of the war on energy prices and then the impact
of sanctions, as the President said today, there is going to be
some pain in this for us.
What we are doing is going all around the world, working
with partners and organizations and entities to try to increase
the amount of oil on the market.
Russia, I think you know, 70 percent of the oil that it
puts on the market has already been constrained by a
combination of sanctions, but also self-sanctioning of trading
entities. So that is a massive loss to the global need.
Frankly, we have got to look everywhere that we can,
including in terms of increased U.S. production, Canadian
production, Mexican production. The Japanese are shipping gas
now to Europe.
We have got to all work together to increase the supply so
that the pain of all of this goes primarily on Russia, which is
losing revenue and dumping product, in fact, and paying a high
price for that, and less on us and the American consumer and
the European consumer.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciate your comments that energy
prices were high prior to all of this and that, to me, is a
direct result of the policies of this Administration as John
Kerry, former Secretary of State, said he hoped that what was
happening in Russia and in--by Russia in Ukraine did not
distract from his climate agenda, and I think that is a very
terrible mistake to be the position of the United States.
Thanks. Thanks, Madam Secretary.
The Chairman. Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is so good to see you. Thank you for staying for this
long hearing.
Ms. Nuland. Thank you.
Senator Booker. You are at the tail end here.
We talked yesterday in the classified briefing about food
issues and this data you know, but Russia and Ukraine account
for, roughly, 14 percent of the global wheat production and
even more so about 30 percent of the global share of exports.
We are already seeing an unprecedented increase in global
food insecurity around the globe due to COVID-19 and, of
course, climate change impacts which we are seeing in places
like Afghanistan.
The World Food Programme has already issued before the
Ukraine crisis a special appeal for $6 billion to cover the
increase in assistance that is going to be providing to,
literally, the tens and tens of millions of people, including
millions of children, to save them from starvation and death in
places like Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa.
The crisis is already having an impact on what is an
already dire situation with making it worse, wheat prices
jumping almost 50 percent and hitting record highs.
I am seeing already this omnibus shape up and I have a lot
of concerns that it is not going to be anywhere near meeting
the crisis. The spending bill that we are seeing is going to
include billions of dollars for humanitarian assistance that
can be used by the State Department in Ukraine, but also, with
some flexibility, I am being told, around the globe, and I
expect a substantial portion of these funds will be provided
through the Migration and Refugee Assistance Program.
I guess, with your earlier comment to Senator Coons where
you said that a lot of the resources we are putting there will
not even--I think the quote, ``will not even have half of what
we need,'' given the growth of this refugee crisis that is
going to probably come.
I am wondering, do you think the State Department will have
the ability to really use any portions of these emergency MRA
funds to meet the needs of refugees not just in Ukraine, but
also around the globe?
Ms. Nuland. Senator Booker, I want to thank you for raising
these issues yesterday. I have already taken them back with
regard to what it means when a Ukraine at war may not be able
to plant this season and what it means to global food
insecurity, and a lot of smart people had apparently already
been thinking about this.
We are meeting on it and planning on it, including how to
use some of this support that the Congress is looking at giving
us not just in Ukraine, but for the larger impacts globally of
that breadbasket not being able to supply.
We will work with you on all of these issues.
Senator Booker. I am so grateful.
I am wondering, is there a plan already in place, given
our--how much our infusion of resources was propping up the
Afghani economy for 20 years and then pulling us out and all
the other military, civilian, diplomatic corps out of there,
crashing their economy in addition to climate change, in
addition to COVID?
We know that, right now, unless something changes, roughly,
1 million children will die alone of famine, and I am just
wondering what is our ongoing commitment to that crisis?
Ms. Nuland. We have been engaged in a lot of different
efforts to get humanitarian support--appropriate humanitarian
support directly to the Afghan people, including increasing
licensing for humanitarians, both our own and other
internationals, increasing our own contributions to U.N.
agencies that are active in Afghanistan, as well as trying to
create banking flexibilities for remittances and other things
that are going to alleviate the cash crunch.
We can arrange a separate session for you if that is--yes.
Senator Booker. I would appreciate that.
In my 1 minute I just--I know you are on top of this issue,
but I really would like your testimony.
Obviously, we have seen reports that refugees from ethnic
and racial minorities----
Ms. Nuland. Yes.
Senator Booker. --in Ukraine are experiencing
discrimination as they try to flee Ukraine. Many of them, we
have seen images of them being blocked from the ability to
enter other countries or, in many ways, get the kind of
resources other Ukrainians are.
Can you just tell me what the State Department is doing
about this to encourage our European allies to process all
refugees coming from Ukraine equally and what is the State
Department doing to ensure that our assistance is being used in
ways that adheres to our humanitarian assistance principles--
neutrality, impartiality, and independence?
Ms. Nuland. Senator Booker, it was a very acute problem, as
you know, in the first days of the conflict as a number of
students and workers from other countries as well as Ukrainian
Africans and others tried to get out across the borders and
faced significant discrimination, primarily on the Ukrainian
side, out of local ignorance, I will tell you, and Secretary
Blinken took that issue up immediately with Foreign Minister
Kuleba, and within hours we began to see the situation improve.
We have also done advocacy for specific groups that have
gotten trapped--groups of African students, Indian students--
who we helped to get on a bus to get out of Ukraine when we had
some advocacy from the Ukrainian--from the Indian Government.
We will continue to take on those cases as we see them. We
are, largely, not seeing the problem in EU countries. I think
we were dealing with quite a bit of early ignorance at the
local level in Ukraine.
Senator Booker. Great. I just want to say, you can see from
both sides of the aisle this is a very emotional and as well as
patriotic interest and passion. We are putting a lot of time
here. I know you and your team have the same deep feelings,
have the same passion, patriotism, and concern.
I can only imagine you all are working around the clock and
I just want to give you my gratitude for that commitment and
the incredible work you all are putting in and the hours, I am
sure, as well.
Ms. Nuland. Thank you, Senator.
I just want to say that on behalf of the men and women of
the State Department, who I am proud to have been a part of for
most of my life, to see folks in every generation of service
and all around the world jump in and say, what can I do, and to
participate and put their intellectual capital, their time,
into this has just been amazing and it is the best of America
and the best of the State Department.
Senator Booker. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Schatz.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Secretary, for your service and thank you for being here for
such a long hearing.
I have three basic questions. The first is what is the
status of the negotiation as it relates to the humanitarian
corridors? We are reading different things. I am wondering what
is real and what is not and what is possible.
Ms. Nuland. On the humanitarian corridors, I think you know
we are on our third day of disappointment where we thought we
had something agreed. U.N. agencies have been the main
negotiators--ICRC and UNHCR--and in those--the first two
attempts we actually had local firing by Russian forces on
folks seeking to flee.
We are now attempting, or they are now attempting to try
again in Mariupol. We also had in those first two rounds very
cynical Russian response--sure, you can have a corridor up to
Russia, but not into the rest of Ukraine, which was, obviously,
rejected.
We are trying--they are trying again now in Mariupol and we
will see how that goes.
Senator Schatz. So there were sort of two issues. One was
the ridiculous, sure, you can get a corridor back to Russia.
The other--I guess I am wondering whether that was a sort of
command and control problem where the locals--so that is not
your assessment? Your assessment is they were violating it from
the jump.
Ms. Nuland. I cannot say whether it was local malfeasance
or more general malfeasance on the part of the Russian
military. Neither would be beyond comprehension. It was
egregious and yet another violation of human rights in Ukraine.
Senator Schatz. Absolute atrocity. A war crime.
Belarus--is the free world doing enough to punish Belarus?
Ms. Nuland. We have now imposed sanctions on Belarus that
match what we have done in Russia. That was part of the package
that we imposed last week, and we are continuing to look at
other ways to squeeze the economy that fuels Lukashenko's rule
and we are continuing to look at leaders in Belarus.
I would note here that it is pretty clear that Russia would
have liked to have seen more Belarusian military participation
in this conflict, and there has been a lot of lack of
enthusiasm for that and even desertion.
Senator Schatz. When you say lack of enthusiasm, at all
levels? At the sort of soldier level all the way up to
government leaders?
Ms. Nuland. Certainly at the soldier level.
Senator Schatz. Fair enough. We are seeing a lot of
resistance from countries that have traditionally had a close
relationship with Russia, certainly, over the past decades--
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, outright refusing to participate in
this invasion, and my assessment is that they do not want to
stipulate to the legitimacy of what is happening because they
may, in fact, be next.
So what is the State Department's view of those
relationships and how do we--without sort of overplaying our
hand, how do we be supportive or become more supportive of
Uzbekistan, of Kazakhstan, of these countries that very well
could be next if this becomes a successful precedent?
Ms. Nuland. Since their independence, we have had very--we
have had relations with all of those countries. I would say
that in the last year we have really accelerated our work with
them collectively, what we call the C5+1, but also our effort
to work with them individually.
As you know, in the aftermath of the withdrawal from
Afghanistan there were a lot of issues. They collaborated and
helped us in getting some of--some Americans and LPRs across.
We have other things that we work with them on.
We are also working with them intensively on having
diversity of economic options, diversity of political options,
and in the aftermath of the events in Kazakhstan of a couple of
months ago, the Kazakhs have come back to us and said that they
are not interested in getting involved in Ukraine, as have
another--a number of the other countries there, and we think
that any effort by Putin to involve the CSTO, collectively,
will also fail in this conflict because, as you say, they have
their own independent interests and it is not an easy decision
for them because they are also very dependent.
Senator Schatz. Final question--and I can take this for the
record if you do not want to do this off the top of your head--
I just want to be reassured that we are constantly assessing
and reassessing and reestimating the number of refugees that we
expect.
I have seen this sort of range of between 1 and 5 million.
That, I am sure, was based on some analysis. It seems to me
that that analysis has to change in real time if we are already
approaching 2 million as of today or around that number.
I just want to be reassured that people are not going to
stick with the 5 million if it looks like we are going to break
through that threshold.
Ms. Nuland. I will say, Senator Schatz that we,
unfortunately, internally estimated 5 million from the
beginning and before the invasion even started just based on
how broad it was or it could--it looked like it was going to
be.
Obviously, we will have to reassess if it goes above that.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Madam Secretary. I am grateful for your wisdom and experience
and passion on this issue. Thank you for the briefing last
night in a classified setting.
Let me associate myself with the comments others have made
about the efforts to transfer the Polish MiG-29s to Ukrainians
and Ukrainian pilots.
I wanted to raise another effort in the defense of Ukraine,
which was the first item that the Ukrainian parliamentarians
mentioned in this letter they sent to members of Congress
today, which had to do with missile defense.
Because as we have seen in published reports, we do not see
that many Russian planes in the air these days, but we do see a
lot of missiles--their incoming. In fact, published reports I
have seen estimate over 600 missiles.
Here is the number-one ask from the Ukrainian
parliamentarians: ``Military assistance suitable for countering
Russian attacks and military advances. Ukraine needs surface-
to-air missile systems such as Iron Dome or NASAMS to protect
civilian areas from incoming Russian missiles. We implore the
United States to work with all allies and partners to provide
Ukraine with these life-saving missile defense systems
immediately.''
Can you talk to both the systems that they have requested
there and what the status of our efforts to secure those would
be?
Ms. Nuland. Senator, what I would rather do is talk to you
about the specifics in a classified setting. I will tell you
that we have provided a large number of counter battery radars
and we are looking at some of these other things, as I
mentioned at the top, that you mentioned.
Senator Van Hollen. Let me ask you this. Are there any
political obstacles to moving forward with either of the
systems that were mentioned?
Ms. Nuland. I would only say with regard to Iron Dome, you
cannot just snap your fingers and you have an Iron Dome. It
takes training. It takes the ability to emplace it and all of
those kinds of things, but there are other things on your list
and their list which we think that we can do.
Senator Van Hollen. Good.
Ms. Nuland. I will leave it at that.
Senator Van Hollen. Okay. I look forward to following up
with you on this.
Now, on the sanctions front and, again, I applaud the
Administration for the approach you have taken--the sanctions
and the efforts with our allies to make sure that to the extent
possible we can do that in unison and in a coordinated way, and
the fact that you have imposed the same sanctions on Belarus.
I looked at that U.N. vote. It was impressive, 141--35
abstentions, 5 noes. Probably the noes we expected.
I will say among the 35 abstentions there were many
disappointments, many countries that we consider our friends
and fellow democracies who stood on the sidelines at an
important moment.
In terms of the sanctions, many of those countries that
abstained are not joining us right now in terms of the
sanctions, and I do understand that the arms export control
sanctions have a long arm effect so that it is not necessarily
their choice as to whether to comply.
When it comes to banking sanctions they do not have the
long arm effect unless we apply secondary sanctions. So the
Administration has the authority to apply secondary sanctions.
I do not think you need any more authority or hoops you need to
jump through in order to justify not imposing them in certain
circumstances.
With respect to countries that are participating in
allowing Russia relief from our banking sanctions, are you
considering applying secondary sanctions in those cases?
Ms. Nuland. You are talking about some of the no votes on
the list there, I assume?
Senator Van Hollen. I am talking about countries who are
not currently voluntarily participating with us in our
economic--the banking sanctions.
Ms. Nuland. I would say----
Senator Van Hollen. The good news was the EU is with us.
Other countries are with us, but there are other major
countries that Russia could turn to as a sort of off-ramp on
some of those sanctions.
Ms. Nuland. Senator Van Hollen, our first choice is to try
to persuade those countries that this is not a moment to try to
be neutral or sit on the fence, and to join us in sanctions.
That will be far better, far better for their
sustainability, et cetera, and far better in terms of ensuring
that those countries themselves do not become havens for dirty
Russian money.
That is the case that we are making. All of us are working
very hard on that with, I am going to guess, the same countries
of concern to you.
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. I just think that
the major step was to have the major economic powers on board--
the European community. You did that.
Ms. Nuland. And the Asians. Asian----
Senator Van Hollen. Japan and Singapore and South Korea and
Australia. All really good.
Ms. Nuland. Yes. New Zealand.
Senator Van Hollen. There are, as you just indicated, we
know, big exceptions. So it seems to me at some point all of
the countries that are already in----
Ms. Nuland. Yes.
Senator Van Hollen. --would have an interest in joining
with us in putting pressure on those who are still out.
Ms. Nuland. We have been making that point as well. The
President did in his conversation yesterday with other major
country leaders, and we are trying to get the support of the G-
7 to broaden this community as much as we possibly can, and I
think you will see us making some forays to some of those
places in the days and weeks ahead.
Senator Van Hollen. I hope you are successful.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Nuland. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you. In following up on what Senator
Van Hollen said, first of all, I have no difficulty at all with
you guys trying to persuade other countries to go along.
If he is suggesting what I think he was suggesting, and
that is that secondary sanctions ought to be on the table and
you ought to have them at the ready in the toolbox to use if it
is necessary to help these other countries get to where they
need to be, I hope you are all in on that.
I, certainly, am and I suspect maybe that is what Senator
Van Hollen was suggesting. If he is, I want to associate myself
with those remarks.
Let me turn to another subject, just briefly. We have got a
vote started and so I will try to make this brief.
You and I are, obviously, in a different place on JCPOA, as
we have discussed over the many years. Let us see if we can get
some stuff with that we do agree with.
Let us set JCPOA aside. Let us say it never happened or it
is never there. Is there a major impediment for Iran to be able
to finish the completion of a nuclear weapon?
Ms. Nuland. For it to be able to finish the completion of
the nuclear----
Senator Risch. Weapon.
Ms. Nuland. Is there a major impediment?
Senator Risch. Yes. Let me suggest this. Would you agree
with me that the country of Israel is a major impediment for
them to be able to complete a nuclear weapon?
Ms. Nuland. I would agree with you that Israel has
regularly and frequently taken matters into their own hands
with regard to trying to slow or stop a weapon.
I would not----
Senator Risch. Indeed, they are the only ones that have,
really.
Ms. Nuland. I do not think I would agree with that, but we
can talk about that in a classified setting.
Senator Risch. All right. That is fine.
Ms. Nuland. I would not say that I believe that that is
achievable as a complete end state in the short run by Israel
alone.
Senator Risch. I would disagree with you on that, but I
would agree that it is an arguable point.
You have heard Israel, as I have, probably face-to-face, as
I have, over and over, state in very plain simple language,
they will never permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon of
which could threaten their existence. Is that a fair statement?
Ms. Nuland. They have said that, and they have said that
across two Administrations.
Senator Risch. Do you believe them?
Ms. Nuland. I believe that that is their intent. I think
there is a question of--I think we should--yes, talk about this
probably in another setting.
Senator Risch. That is fair. I agree with that.
I, for one, believe them. I have long said if you believe
them, that threat for Iran is a significantly stronger threat
than anything the JCPOA could put on the table. In any event,
at least part of this we agree on. Let me ask another question,
see if you agree with this.
Ms. Nuland. I always like it, Ranking Member Risch, when we
can find places to agree.
Senator Risch. I could not agree more. So let us see if we
can find one more area and then I will let this be. Did you
watch the debates of the 18 Republican candidates for President
in the last election?
Ms. Nuland. I sure did, to the extent I could stand it.
Senator Risch. Yes. What did they say--including one of
them who was just sitting here--what did they say they were
going to do with the agreement the first day they were in
office?
Ms. Nuland. Rip it up, I guess.
Senator Risch. Yes, that is what they said. Indeed, the
successful person actually did that. My guess is that we are
going to have 18 again here in a few years and my guess is that
they are probably all going to take the exact same position
that happened last time.
Do you think that that is more likely than not?
Ms. Nuland. Senator, I do not think I want to get out my
crystal ball with regard to where your colleagues and your
fellow party members might be.
I would hope that if the--if we come back into the
agreement and it begins to prove its worth that we will not
have that debate again. We will see where the world turns.
Senator Risch. Yes. I would like to be that optimistic
about it, but I cannot be inasmuch. I know a number of those
people and I know what they are going to do.
Ms. Nuland. I am a diplomat. I am paid to be an optimist.
Senator Risch. Yes. That is the difficulty with this whole
thing. I cannot tell you how many times I had to deal with
people--and you probably did, too--who say, well, you
Americans, you broke the deal. You breached the date.
I said no. No. No. No. No. You had no deal with us. Our
Constitution is crystal clear. If you want to deal with
America, it has got to be done by submitting it to the United
States Senate and get a two-thirds vote, at which point their
eyes glaze over and say, I do not know about that. I said, but
you did have an agreement with Barack Obama. I will agree with
that. This time, they will have an agreement with Joe Biden.
You would agree with me that the efficacy of the agreement
with the President without Senate ratification will have the
same legal effect the previous JCPOA had on the next
Administration. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Nuland. I mean, obviously, whenever you have an
agreement that has Senate ratification that tends to indemnify
it better against being ripped up by one side or the other, but
not always, as we have seen with some treaties.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much, and I am glad we found
some common ground.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Nuland. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Madam Secretary, one final question. You have
been extraordinarily insightful here for the better part of 2
hours. Is it fair to say that Ukraine is the epicenter in
Europe of oil and gas lines?
Ms. Nuland. You mean the main crossing point? I mean,
technically speaking, I think there are more lines that cut
through Germany than Ukraine. Ukraine is an essential node, if
that is what you mean.
The Chairman. Right.
Ms. Nuland. Yes.
The Chairman. So if Putin were to achieve his conquest of
Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 would be insignificant to him?
Ms. Nuland. Yes, of course. Yes.
The Chairman. Yes. Because he would have all of these
pipelines that he could control. So I just find it--everybody
is welcome to their opinion, but they are not welcome to their
facts.
To believe that Nord Stream is the reason that Vladimir
Putin invaded Ukraine is--it is a bit of a stretch, to say the
least.
I do think that the incredible importance of this issue is
exemplified by the fact that 19 of 22 members have been here
today, asking questions and engaging with you. That is not
always the case on the subject matters that we have before the
committee, but it just shows the intensity on both sides of the
aisle.
I want to send a message to our friends across the globe
who did not join us at the United Nations and who are not
joining us in some of the actions they could be taking.
You really should rethink what side of history you want to
be on. You really should think, again, about what side of
history you want to be on, because the world is watching and we
are watching.
Then, lastly, I hope that the 44 nominees before the
committee and the 22 that are pending on the floor can see
swift justice in terms of getting a vote because we need
everybody on the fields to make sure that Putin loses, at the
end of the day.
I am thankful with the ranking member for those who have
gotten out today, but we need to do more.
With that, the record for this hearing will remain open
until the close of business on Wednesday, March the 9th. Please
ensure the questions for the record are submitted no later than
Wednesday.
With the deep thanks of the committee for your appearance
and all of the insights, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Ms. Victoria Nuland to Questions
Submitted by Senator Jim Risch
Question. U.S. Government Policy Towards Russia: Given Russia's
recent invasion of Ukraine, are there any areas that remain in which we
might be able to work with the Russian Federation?
Answer. The United States has been clear that President Putin and
his enablers are solely responsible for isolating Russia from the
international community by launching his further invasion of Ukraine.
Ultimately, it is up to Russia to determine whether they want to end
this isolation and work together in a rules-based international order.
Question. How successful do you consider Russia's efforts around
the globe to sway public opinion in favor of their invasion of Ukraine?
Answer. While many Russian disinformation efforts are ineffective
and easily ignored by audiences, the Department has conducted overseas
audience research that indicates Kremlin disinformation narratives
about its invasion of Ukraine have had some effect in eroding
perceptions of the United States and the West in some locations. This
data indicates that Kremlin disinformation can weaken U.S. favorability
and the perception that the U.S. wants peace, while also decreasing the
proportion of respondents who perceive Russia as the aggressor. Similar
patterns exist across all regions.
Question. Is the U.S. doing enough to counter Russia's efforts to
sway public opinion in favor of their invasion of Ukraine?
Answer. Our biggest challenge with audiences farther from the war
zone is not countering Russia's efforts to sway public opinion in its
favor, but rather countering Russia's efforts to cause people to become
confused about or apathetic to the human devastation that the Kremlin
has wrought from Bucha to Grozny to Aleppo. It is this disengagement
and apathy that opens the door to Russian narratives. The United States
is working overtime with Allies and partners to shine a light on the
atrocities and humanitarian disaster for which Putin is responsible,
but we need to keep these stories in front-page news in every corner of
the world.
Question. How can the U.S. improve its efforts to counter Russia's
actions to sway public opinion in relation to the invasion of Ukraine?
Answer. By working with and through allied and partner voices we
illuminate the human consequences of Putin's war of choice and remind
audiences around the world of the values and concerns they share with
the Ukrainian people and other victims of unprovoked Russian
aggression. U.S. Government senior leaders and all our embassies around
the world are giving a steady stream of interviews to journalists in
all regions, including in Russia, to help get out the truth. We are
also developing and implementing projects with local civil society
organizations, journalists, and governments to build whole of society
resilience to identify and counter Russian disinformation narratives
targeting their media space.
Question. Sanctions on Russia: What do you see as the main goal of
this most recent round of sanctions on Russia?
Answer. The United States has taken significant and unprecedented
action to respond to Russia's further invasion of Ukraine by imposing
severe economic costs that will have both immediate and long-term
effects on the Russian economy and financial system. These actions are
specifically designed to impose immediate costs and disrupt and degrade
future economic activity, isolate Russia from international finance and
commerce, and degrade the Kremlin's future ability to project power. We
have been able to take these efforts in a comprehensive multilateral
manner with our partners. We will continue to impose economic costs on
the Russian Government for its brutal war.
Question. It is early yet, but how do you assess the effectiveness
of the sanctions placed on Russia since February 24, 2022?
Answer. The United States and more than 30 allies and partners
across the world have imposed severe and immediate costs on Russia for
its unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. We will continue to impose
costs on Russia so long as it continues on its current path. Experts
predict Russia's GDP will contract up to 15 percent this year, wiping
out the last 15 years of economic gains. Moody's downgraded Russia's
long-term government bond rating to ``junk'' or ``non-investment grade
status.'' A major portion of the Central Bank of Russia's reserves are
frozen. Major state-owned companies have lost between 70-90 percent of
their market capitalization. More than 600 multinational companies
across a wide variety of sectors have suspended operations in Russia.
The Russian Government has had artificial success at stabilizing the
ruble and the Russian financial sector, but only at considerable cost,
to include strict capital controls, and expense by the Central Bank. We
are monitoring the situation closely for signs that Russia is adjusting
to our sanctions pressure, and for sanctions evasion globally.
Question. Have some Western sanctions had unintended positive
effects on Russia and its economy?
Answer. Since the imposition of our sanctions as well as those of
our partners, we have further isolated Russia from the global financial
system and limited access to a major part of its foreign currency
reserves. While Russia has worked to stabilize the ruble, its emergency
adjustments will not stop economic pressure from building over time,
particularly as wind-down licenses issued by the U.S. Department of the
Treasury expire.
Question. What effect would further sanctions have on the Russian
economy?
Answer. Experts predict Russia's GDP will contract up to 15 percent
this year, wiping out the last fifteen years of economic gains. Russia
has had to implement extensive capital controls to prevent money from
fleeing the country, further cutting itself off from the global
financial system. Moody's downgraded Russia's long-term government bond
rating to ``junk.'' Continuing to impose sanctions would further
isolate Russia from the global financial system and increase pressure
on institutions that are systemically significant to Russia's economy
and those that have benefited from Putin's kleptocracy. Prospects for
an economic recovery remain limited for the foreseeable future. The
Administration will continue to assess all options to impose costs on
the Russian economy.
Question. What effect would further sanctions have on Putin's
regime?
Answer. We need to continue imposing economic costs on Putin, those
around him, and his regime as long as his war in Ukraine continues.
Continuing to impose sanctions will increase pressure on the Russian
economy, including institutions that are systemically significant to
Russia's war machine and technological advancement, and those that have
benefited from Putin's kleptocracy. The impact of our sanctions will
grow with every passing day, and we will continue to increase pressure
against his regime until Putin withdraws from Ukraine.
Question. As of today, U.S. sanctions targeting the Central Bank of
Russia (CBR) and Sberbank come with no secondary sanctions. These
institutions are not on Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals and
Blocked Persons List (SDN) list. That leaves many countries open to
doing business with Russia. Will the Administration consider a full
secondary sanctions designation for the CBR and Sberbank?
Answer. As of April 6, 2022, Sberbank has been added to the SDN
list, subject to full blocking sanctions, and is also subject to
restrictions by the UK, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the
Republic of Korea, and the Bahamas. The UK, EU, Japan, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Singapore have joined the
United States in imposing restrictions on the CBR. These restrictions
severely limit where Sberbank and the CBR can do business. We also are
prepared to take action against sanctions evaders, including those
providing material support to sanctioned Russian entities.
Question. Secondary sanctions on entities that continue to do
business with sanctioned Russian companies, banks, and financial
institutions are key to shuttering Russia's economy. Why has the
Administration not imposed secondary sanctions on such entities?
Answer. In order to maximize the impact of sanctions imposed by the
United States, our allies, and partners, it is critical to maintain
unity on our actions. In that context, we are coordinating closely with
our partners and allies on the potential use of secondary sanctions. We
have made clear to countries considering sanctions evasion schemes and
backfilling that we are ready to use our discretionary authority to
sanction those that provide material support to sanctioned persons and
entities, if necessary. We are conducting outreach around the world to
stress the importance of countering evasion activities, as well as the
provision of material support to sanctioned persons, wherever those
activities occur.
Question. What conditions must be met for the Administration to
consider secondary sanctions on such entities?
Answer. We continue to monitor the situation on the ground, and as
the President has stressed, no options are off the table. Presently,
the United States and our partners and allies have taken significant
and unprecedented action to respond to Russia's further invasion of
Ukraine, while also seeking to minimize the impact on our own economies
wherever feasible. Maintaining this unity will remain critical to
ensuring our collective sanctions remain impactful. We continue to
coordinate closely with our partners on additional steps we can take to
close sanctions gaps, prevent backfilling, address sanctions evasion,
and strengthen sanctions enforcement.
Question. What waiver authorities would the Administration need to
responsibly impose secondary sanctions and mitigate collateral damage
to U.S. and friendly economies?
Answer. Executive Order 14024 provides authority for the Secretary
of State and the Secretary of Treasury (subject to the relevant
consultation) to impose sanctions on individuals or entities that have
materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or
technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of,
individuals or entities sanctioned under the executive order.
Maintaining flexibility and discretion to impose such sanctions is
critical to ensuring that our actions do not fray existing unity around
sanctioning Russia for its actions in Ukraine and that they remain
impactful.
Question. How is the Administration making it clear to the Russian
people that the destruction of Russia's economy is directly linked to
Putin's malign leadership?
Answer. As long as Vladimir Putin continues this war, the United
States and our Allies and partners are committed to ensuring the
Kremlin feels the compounding effects of our current and future
economic sanctions. While the Russian economy continues to deteriorate,
we continue to push public messages into Russia by all means possible
to ensure that the Russian people understand that the Kremlin is fully
responsible for this unjust war. We continue to reiterate what
President Biden has said: that we hold President Putin and his enablers
solely responsible for this unjust war and its repercussions, not the
Russian people.
Question. How is the State Department working to debunk the
narrative that the West is sanctioning Russia because we want to hurt
the Russian people?
Answer. Our sanctions are specifically designed to impose immediate
costs on Putin's regime, disrupt and degrade future economic activity,
isolate Russia from international finance and commerce, and reduce the
Kremlin's future ability to project power. Our sanctions are carefully
calibrated to allow for humanitarian activities including trade in
medicine, medical devices, and agricultural commodities. In particular,
the Department of the Treasury has issued general licenses to authorize
transactions in important areas that would otherwise be blocked such as
humanitarian goods (including food, agricultural products, and COVID-19
related items) and personal telecommunications to maintain the Russian
people's access to information.
Question. Has the Administration considered imposing unilateral
sanctions measures on Russia in order to persuade our allies to do the
same?
Answer. The United States and our partners and allies have taken
significant and unprecedented action to respond to Russia's further
invasion of Ukraine by imposing severe economic costs that will have
both immediate and long-term effects on the Russian economy and
financial system. We have coordinated our actions with our partners,
and while our actions are similar in most cases, they are often not
identical. In a number of cases, the United States has been able to
take action first, and others have followed. Maintaining unity among
our allies and partners is critical to ensuring our collective
sanctions remain impactful on Putin's regime.
Question. Russia in Syria: Russia has gained valuable experience in
Syria since its intervention in support of the regime of the brutal
dictator Bashar al Assad. Russia's intervention, in 2015, helped turn
the tide of the conflict decisively in Assad's favor, giving him space
to continue to torture, kill, and kidnap Syrian civilians. For Moscow,
Syria has proved a fertile training ground. In addition to reports
indicating the Russians are recruiting Syrian fighters with urban
combat experience to fight in Ukraine, we are also witnessing the same
tactics and weapons being replicated in Ukraine with equally
devastating cost to civilian lives. As in rebel strongholds like Aleppo
and Eastern Ghouta, Russian forces are encircling and besieging
Ukrainian cities attempting to bomb the populace into submission, and
like Syria, meeting equally with fierce resistance. How can the U.S.
Government leverage its expertise related to Russian actions in Syria
to help inform its engagement on Ukraine?
Answer. Russia is employing similar tactics in Ukraine to those it
used and supported in Syria, including military tactics against urban
population centers, the use of disinformation to discredit the
opposition, and strikes hitting civilian infrastructure. We are already
deploying some of the lessons learned from Syria in Ukraine. These
include working to counter disinformation, immediately supporting civil
society defenders on the ground, and documenting human rights abuses
and violations and possible war crimes now to subsequently pursue
accountability. We will continue to share these and other such lessons
learned with Ukraine.
Question. The international community's failure to hold Russia to
account for its actions in Syria, which, according to the UN, amount to
war crimes, has provided the Kremlin an opening to rewrite history.
What more can the U.S. do to ensure Russia is held to account for its
intervention in Syria?
Answer. Promoting accountability for those responsible for past and
ongoing atrocities in Syria remains a key component our Syria policy.
We are coordinating closely with the UN, allies, and partners, and with
Syrian civil society to promote accountability for the most serious
crimes committed in Syria. The United States, in close coordination
with our allies, successfully helped renew the mandate of the UN's
Commission of Inquiry on Syria on April 1. The United States will
continue to support the important work of the UN International,
Impartial, and Independent Mechanism, and will continue supporting
civil society organizations that collect, document, and preserve
evidence of human rights violations and abuses in Syria.
Question. To what extent do you feel the international community's
failure to hold Russia to account contributed to President Putin's
calculus in authorizing Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
Answer. It is unclear what, if anything, could have altered Putin's
calculus, which by his own statements is based on holy misguided and
false assumptions about the resolve of the Ukrainians, the United
States, and the international community to defend Ukrainian sovereignty
and uphold the right of states to determine their own future. The
Department of State is committed to holding Russia to account for its
brutal war in Ukraine and to making crystal clear to Putin and the
world that the United States will continue to provide Ukraine with all
support necessary to defend its territory and its people from Russian
aggression.
Question. Do you agree with the UN's assessment that Russian
actions amount to war crimes?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What threat does Russian entrenchment in Syria pose to
U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond?
Answer. Russia's military campaign in Syria has led to massive
destruction, the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and the
largest displacement crisis since WWII. The Assad regime, with Russian
support, actively obstructs a political resolution to the Syrian
conflict, which continues to threaten regional stability and the
security of our regional partners, including Israel and Jordan. Russian
support denies much of the country access to humanitarian aid. By
enabling the regime to continue functioning with impunity, Russia has
prolonged the situation that prevents the safe, dignified, and
voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons to Syria, which in
turn imposes an ongoing and destabilizing refugee burden on neighboring
states such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. Russia's support for the
regime also prolongs the absence of good governance, policing, and
security, and permits the presence of terrorist groups in Syria and the
consequent threat to U.S. interests. Russia has also used its UN veto
to block international efforts to hold the Assad regime accountable for
the ongoing atrocities committed in Syria.
Question. Syria plays a central role in the Kremlin's strategy to
position itself as a ``great power.'' Through Syria, it's worked to
expand its global influence, pointing towards its support for the Assad
regime as evidence of its ``reliability'' as a partner and ally. The
Kremlin does so with the objective of undermining American interests in
the region. How can the U.S. better position itself to pushback against
Russian disinformation in the Middle East, and reassure our regional
partners and allies of the U.S.'s long-term commitment to the region?
Answer. In Syria, Russia uses its disinformation and propaganda
networks to distract from its role in the conflict and the Assad
regime's atrocities (as well as its own). The United States is
discrediting Moscow's disinformation by demonstrating and delivering
upon an affirmative agenda that builds long-term partnerships to
promote regional integration, economic investment that drives
prosperity and jobs, and people-to-people ties. We also counter
Moscow's disinformation through engagement with people in the region on
digital literacy training, sharing best practices to the challenges
posed by Russian disinformation, and debunking specific Kremlin
disinformation in the public sphere, denying Russia the ability to
propagate unanswered false narratives.
Question. Why, in your view, has Russian propaganda been so
successful in penetrating the Arab media landscape?
Answer. Moscow takes advantage of existing elite and popular
skepticism about U.S. policy and intentions in the Middle East, playing
on tropes about Western colonialism and regional interference stemming
from U.S. support for Israel and interventions in Libya, Iraq, and
Afghanistan. Russia's information operations efforts include overt
Russian Government voices, diplomatic missions' platforms, state-funded
media, proxy websites, inauthentic or inorganic social media accounts,
and partnerships with Arabic media outlets. At the same time, the
disinformation ecosystems of Russia, the People's Republic of China
(PRC), and Iran opportunistically converge, amplify, and reinforce each
other's propaganda and disinformation narratives.
Question. What role can, and should, the Caesar Syrian Civilian
Protection Act play in any strategy to combat Russian influence in
Syria?
Answer. Seeking accountability for human rights abuses committed by
the Assad regime and its backers and allies in Syria remains a key
component of U.S. Syria policy. Our Syria sanctions, including under
the Caesar Syrian Civilian Protection Act, are vital tools to press for
accountability for the Assad regime and its backers, including Russia,
notably with respect to human rights violations and abuses--some of
which rise to the level of war crimes--inflicted on the Syrian people.
We will continue to use these tools to deter support for the Assad
regime's ongoing atrocities.
Question. How does the Caesar Syrian Civilian Protection Act impact
Russian influence in the wider Middle East?
Answer. In both Syria and Libya, Russian military and paramilitary
forces have exploited conflicts for Moscow's own selfish interests,
posing grave threats to regional stability and global commerce. In
Syria, the Russian military campaign has led to massive destruction in
service of the Assad regime, as well as the death or displacement of
hundreds of thousands of civilians. This Administration considers Syria
sanctions authorities, including the Caesar Act, to be important tools
to pursue accountability for the Assad regime and its enablers. The
United States will continue to work closely with our allies and
partners to impose further costs on Putin and his enablers until Putin
changes course.
Question. The international community has long argued that any
reconstruction funds in Syria must be tied to tangible progress towards
reform by the Assad regime. Reconstruction funds give the international
community critical leverage over any final settlement in Syria and must
not be extended lightly. There is, however, growing concerns Moscow is
successfully undermining international unity on this issue, and
blurring the lines between reconstruction funding and early recovery
projects. In fact, this Administration by its own admission is
supporting UN projects to rebuild hospitals and schools in regime
strongholds and cultivating economic development in Russian port cities
of Latakia and Tartus. What is the U.S. position with respect to
reconstruction in Syria?
Answer. This Administration has not changed its policy of opposing
reconstruction by or for the Assad regime until there is irreversible
progress toward a political resolution to the conflict in line with UN
Security Council Resolution 2254, which we have not yet seen. The
United States has long supported humanitarian early recovery programs
that ensure Syrians in need have access to basic services. Humanitarian
early recovery projects are needs-based and conducted by independent
and impartial humanitarian agencies, while reconstruction projects are
conducted by or for the Assad regime to benefit its own narrow
interests. Humanitarian early recovery projects are generally smaller
scale than reconstruction, primarily occurring at the individual,
family, or community level.
Question. How do business development and livelihood support in
Assad-held areas further U.S. strategic interests in Syria?
Answer. The primary goal of U.S. humanitarian assistance, including
livelihood-focused activities, is to save lives and alleviate the
suffering of the Syrian people by insuring that vulnerable and crisis-
affected individuals receive assistance and protection, regardless of
their geographic location. U.S.-supported livelihood-focused activities
in areas controlled by the Assad regime help the most vulnerable
Syrians become less dependent on U.S. humanitarian aid. They are small-
scale and humanitarian in nature, are implemented by impartial and
independent organizations, and are based entirely on humanitarian need.
Question. How does Moscow stand to gain financially from such
initiatives?
Answer. The Department assesses that the risk of financial gain to
Russia from livelihood-focused humanitarian programs in regime-held
areas is low. The Department takes all possible steps to carefully
monitor and mitigate against fiduciary and other risks associated with
providing humanitarian assistance in all areas of Syria during this
period of severe economic deterioration and unprecedented need,
including the risks involving any financial gain to malign actors in
the region. Humanitarian early recovery programs in regime-controlled
areas such as livelihood-focused activities are small-scale and
household/community-focused projects implemented by thoroughly screened
impartial and independent organizations based on humanitarian needs,
not regime demands.
Question. Having spent years bombing opposition strongholds into
submission, the regime and its Russian backers are now successfully
making inroads with our Arab partners, cultivating support to
rehabilitate Bashar al Assad and rebuild the country he broke. What
steps should the U.S. take to limit our Arab partners from legitimizing
the regime and by extension further Russian influence in the region?
Answer. The United States will not upgrade its relations with the
Assad regime or legitimize the actions of the brutal dictator Bashar
al-Assad. This Administration opposes other countries normalizing their
relations with Assad's regime, and we have repeatedly made that clear
to our Arab partners. The Department has expressed its deep
disappointment to those states that have taken actions to legitimize
the regime, actions the Department believes are especially
inappropriate given the atrocities the regime continues to inflict on
the Syrian people. We will continue to convey concern with the signal
such actions send. The Department has also cautioned regional partners
that economic engagement with the Assad regime risks U.S. sanctions
consequences.
Question. What are the risks of a greater Russian role in Libya to
U.S. interests in Syria?
Answer. Russians in Libya benefit from Russian military basing in
Syria, but they do not pose a direct threat to U.S. interests in Syria
from Libya. A ceasefire in Libya has held since the summer of 2020, and
Libyan leaders are seeking to resolve their disputes peacefully. That
said, Russia has proven to be a divisive force in Libya, complicating
national reconciliation and U.S. efforts to promote a political
transition to a sovereign, stable, unified, and secure Libya with no
foreign interference. In Libya, as in Syria, Russian military and
paramilitary forces have exploited conflicts for Moscow's own selfish
interests, posing grave threats to regional stability and global
commerce. The Administration believes that stability in Syria and Libya
can only be achieved through an inclusive political process facilitated
by the UN.
The United States is committed to working with allies, partners,
and the UN to ensure that durable political solutions remain within
reach in both Libya and Syria.
Question. Russia in Libya: In Libya, Russia has deployed Wagner
mercenaries in support of the rebel commander Khalifa Haftar. According
to successive UN reports, Russian affiliated righters are violating the
UN arms embargo with total impunity. How do you plan to address
reported violations of the UN arms embargo?
Answer. The United States continues to call on all external
parties, including Russia, to respect Libyan sovereignty, comply with
the UN arms embargo, and respect the October 2020 ceasefire agreement
through the full withdrawal of all foreign forces, fighters, and
mercenaries. Individuals and entities that have violated or assisted
the evasion of the UN arms embargo are eligible for designation for
asset freeze and travel ban measures. The United States will work
closely with our international partners to implement the UN arms
embargo and to consider adopting measures against those who violate it.
The United States and our partners continue to explore a range of
options for curtailing the influence of Russian-backed paramilitary
forces. The United States, the UK, and the EU have sanctioned Wagner
and its leader, Yevgeniy Prigozhin, and we have publicized Wagner's
extensive links to the Kremlin, and their human rights abuses and other
malign activities in Libya.
Question. While current policy has been to publicize Russian
adventurism in Libya, how does the United States impose real costs for
Russia's use of private military contractors, i.e., Wagner, in Libya?
Answer. The United States and our partners continue to pursue a
range of policies to curtail the influence of Russian-backed
paramilitary forces. The United States, the UK, and the EU have
sanctioned Wagner and its leader, Yevgeniy Prigozhin, and we have
publicized Wagner's extensive links to the Kremlin, and their human
rights abuses and other malign activities in Syria, Libya, and sub-
Saharan Africa. The U.S. Government also supports the work of the UN
Panel of Experts to identify violations of the UN Libya arms embargo.
We continue to work with the UN and our international partners to
support the Libyan-defined path towards elections, which could pave the
way for a new government to establish full control over Libya's entire
territory, an essential step for removing foreign forces.
Question. What are the risks of a greater Russian role in Libya to
U.S. interests in North Africa, including U.S. counterterrorism
efforts?
Answer. Russia has proven to be a divisive force in Libya,
complicating national reconciliation and U.S. efforts to promote a
political transition to a sovereign, stable, unified, and secure Libya
with no foreign interference. Although terrorist groups have been
weakened, Russia-backed paramilitary forces operating in Libya
contribute to a volatile security dynamic that enables the possibility
that terrorist cells could re-group. Russia has used its position in
Libya as a springboard to project power across North Africa and the
Sahel, exacerbating the instability that has led to the resurgence and
spread of violent extremist groups.
Question. What are the threats of Russia successfully gaining a
foothold in Libya, which borders NATO's southern flank?
Answer. An official Russian military presence, or a Russia-backed
Wagner presence, will undermine political negotiations in Libya and
provide a foothold for Russia to expand its destabilizing influence
throughout the African continent.
Question. Egypt Policy: Egypt is located at a strategic crossroads
between the Mediterranean, Middle East, and Africa, remains an
important U.S. partner in the region, and is important to Israel's
security. However, in light of Egypt's growing cooperation with Russia
and reports of potential Su-35 sales, is Egypt pivoting irrevocably
towards Russia?
Answer. The U.S.-Egypt strategic partnership is strong. In the last
year, we have secured nearly $5 billion in new foreign military sales
to Egypt. Egypt has joined the U.S.-led Combined Maritime Forces and
will assume leadership of a taskforce on Red Sea security. Egypt has
yet to take delivery of any Su-35s. Egypt has consistently voted in
favor of resolutions condemning Russia's aggression in Ukraine
including at the UN General Assembly and the IAEA Board of Governors.
My team will follow up to discuss the Russia-Egypt relationship in
further detail.
Question. Bearing in mind that a stronger Egypt-Russia relationship
poses risks to U.S. interests and human rights concerns in Egypt, how
would you and the Biden administration frame or modify U.S. policy
towards Egypt?
Answer. The Administration has shown that we can balance our
security interests and human rights concerns in our relationship with
Egypt. The Secretary's decision to condition, and ultimately withhold
$130 million in FY 2020 FMF yielded concrete human rights progress and
underscored that we will not compromise our values. At the same time,
the Administration has expanded our security, economic, and regional
cooperation with Egypt to historic levels, including by holding our
first Strategic Dialogue with Egypt since 2015.
Question. Would you characterize a potential Egyptian purchase of
Su-35s from Russia as a significant transaction as described under the
Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA)?
Answer. We are committed to fully implementing the law and have
repeatedly cautioned Egypt and all other U.S. partners and allies that
any major new purchase of military equipment from Russia, such as Su-
35s, would pose a severe risk of triggering CAATSA sanctions or other
Russia-related sanctions, as well as damage our bilateral security
assistance and cooperation.
Question. Russia in Latin America: What do you believe will be the
impact of Russia's current economic and geopolitical encumbrances on
the survival of the Diaz-Canel regime in Cuba?
Answer. Sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and
atrocities, combined with the broader effects of Russia's pre-mediated
and unnecessary war in Ukraine, will negatively impact Cuba's economy
through decreased Russian tourism, higher costs for Cuba's food imports
from Russia, potential challenges obtaining Russian oil, decreased
Russian investment, and international banks' reluctance to engage with
countries perceived to support Russia.
The Cuban Government consistently blames Russia's aggression on the
United States and NATO and amplifies Russia's disinformation on the
war.
Question. What do you believe will be the impact of Russia's
current economic and geopolitical encumbrances on the survival of the
Maduro regime in Venezuela?
Answer. The Maduro regime likely feels increased pressure because
of Russia's current international isolation and the second order
effects of U.S. and European sanctions on Russia. Strains on global
supply chains caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine will also increase
costs and reduce supplies of numerous products into Venezuela. In
addition to Russia, the Maduro regime continues to rely on Cuba, the
People's Republic of China, Iran, and others, to seek legitimacy and
promote its political and economic survival.
Question. Is the Administration seriously considering reopening oil
imports from Venezuela and Iran to make up for the supply lost from
Russia?
Answer. While the Administration has engaged in intensive efforts
to address the issue of disruption of oil supplies due to Russia's war
in Ukraine, other foreign policy considerations would guide any
potential changes in our sanctions posture with respect to Iran's and
Venezuela's oil sectors.
A mutual return to full implementation of the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the best available option to constrain Iran's
nuclear program and provide a platform to address Iran's other
destabilizing conduct. If Iran were prepared to return to full
implementation of the JCPOA's limits on its nuclear program, the United
States would be prepared to lift sanctions necessary for JCPOA
compliance, including certain sanctions related to Iran's petroleum
sector.
Current Venezuela-related sanctions remain in effect. While the
Administration does not preview sanctions actions, it has made clear
that the United States will review some sanctions policies if the
Venezuelan parties make meaningful progress toward a democratic
solution.
Question. U.S. oil production is better for our economy, better for
the environment, and better for our national security, so why is the
Administration refusing to increase domestic capacity?
Answer. The United States is currently the world's largest producer
of both oil and natural gas. President Biden has said, ``(Nothing
stands) in the way of domestic oil and gas production.'' The Energy
Information Administration predicts U.S. crude oil production will
average 12 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2022 and a record-high 12.6
million bpd by 2023. The release of more than 1 million bpd of
strategic petroleum reserves for the next 6 months by the United
States, allies, and partners will provide time for domestic industry to
ramp up. We are working with European allies and partners to accelerate
their efforts to end their reliance on Russian fossil fuels. The United
States will also accelerate our clean energy transition to combat
climate change and enhance energy security.
Question. Russia-China Collaboration: The Russian invasion of
Ukraine has many of our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific
increasingly worried about the timeline and possibility of a Taiwan
contingency scenario. What do you see as the main lessons to learn from
the situation in Ukraine?
Answer. We continue to work with these allies and partners to
ensure that the People's Republic of China and President Xi Jinping
learn the right lessons from Russia's brutal and unjustified war
against Ukraine, including that launching such an attack will lead to a
devastating response from the international community. We continue to
engage with our allies and partners on the importance of preserving
peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
Question. Based on that, how can the U.S. better work with Taiwan
to deter further Chinese military aggression now, before a contingency
occurs?
Answer. Our commitment to Taiwan is rock-solid and contributes to
the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and
within the region. We are in regular and close communication with
allies and partners who are also committed to preserving this peace and
stability in the face of increasing pressure. Consistent with the
Taiwan Relations Act, the United States makes available to Taiwan
defense articles and services necessary to enable it to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability in a manner commensurate with the
People's Republic of China's threat to Taiwan.
Question. Does the Administration support increasing defense
engagement with Taiwan to prepare for various contingencies? If so,
what is the Administration doing in this regard?
Answer. Our defense relationship with Taiwan continues to be
commensurate with the threat from the People's Republic of China,
consistent with our one-China policy.
The U.S. Government supports Taiwan through the acquisition of
asymmetric capabilities. The Departments of State and Defense are also
coordinating closely with Taiwan on non-material solutions to improve
its defenses. This includes working with Taiwan to increase resiliency
across the military and non-military domains, including through
reserve/mobilization reforms and civil-military integration.
The United States is also working with Taiwan to realize economic
resiliency through supply chains that are transparent, secure,
sustainable, and diverse.
Question. Does the Administration support providing Foreign
Military Financing to Taiwan (starting sooner rather than later) as one
way to bolster Taiwan's ability to deter Chinese military action? If
so, will the Department of State commit to working with Congress to
make this happen? If not, why does the Department of State not support
it?
Answer. The Department of State welcomes the opportunity to discuss
security assistance funding with Congress, and we are already engaged
in discussions with congressional committees on the proposed Taiwan
Deterrence Act and other proposed bills. Historically, the Department
of State has not provided any security assistance, including Foreign
Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and
Training, to Taiwan due to its high-income status and because it can
use its own funds for foreign military sales. Approximately 93 percent
of the FMF global topline has historically been subject to earmarks and
directives, leaving very little flexibility for other emerging
priorities. As such, the Department of State would require significant
appropriations to support the capabilities Taiwan needs.
Question. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have seen
Chinese leaders vehemently defend China's relationship with Russia,
make no moves to condemn Russia at the United Nations or in its
messaging, deploy no sanctions or punitive measures against Russia, and
take on Russian propaganda about the war. Given this, what is your
assessment of the China-Russia relationship, and how it might be
changing?
Answer. We have deep concerns about the People's Republic of
China's (PRC) alignment with Russia and the potential implications and
consequences of that alignment. President Biden was candid and direct
with President Xi about this concern during their March 18 call and
about the direct reputational costs associated with standing by Putin
as he perpetrates this senseless war.
Question. What is the Administration's theory of the case that
China would be willing to help the United States first to deter
Russia's invasion of Ukraine and then to press for Russia to pull back
from it?
Answer. We have expressed clearly and directly to the PRC the
consequences of providing support to Russia as it wages its brutal war
against Ukraine--committing atrocities and causing a humanitarian
crisis--and flagrantly violates the principles of sovereignty and
territorial integrity that the PRC claims to stand for.
Question. Does the Administration believe that China would be
willing to take actions to support the United States and Europe, but
could undermine its relationship with Russia?
Answer. No.
Question. Does the Department of State agree with Josep Borrell's
comments with respect to mediation and diplomacy on Russia's invasion
of Ukraine? Please describe why or why not: ``There is no alternative .
. . It must be China, I am sure of that . . . Diplomacy cannot only be
European or American. Chinese diplomacy has a role to play here . . .
We have not asked for it and neither have they (China), but since it
has to be a power and neither the U.S. nor Europe can be (mediators),
China could be.''
Answer. The People's Republic of China (PRC) has failed to use its
influence with Moscow to stop Putin's war against Ukraine. We are
actively coordinating with our European Union and European partners to
increase pressure on the PRC to reconsider its tacit support for
Putin's war of aggression.
Question. If the Department of State does not agree with comments
by Mr. Borrell and other European leaders on China playing a mediation
role, are we clearly sending that message to our European allies and
partners?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If so, how are we doing this? If not, why not?
Answer. We utilize direct and open lines of communication with
European leaders. I will lead the first meeting of the U.S.-EU high-
level dialogue on Russia on March 30, where we will also discuss
People's Republic of China (PRC)-Russia relations in the context of
Putin's war. Additionally, on April 21, Deputy Secretary Sherman and
European External Action Service Secretary General Stefano Sannino will
meet for their semi-annual U.S.-EU dialogue on China, and the PRC's
role in Russia's war against Ukraine is a central agenda item.
Question. On February 26, the New York Times reported that the
Administration shared intelligence with top Chinese officials on
Russia's troop build-up along Ukraine's border, as part of evidence to
convince China to help the United States deter a Russian invasion. The
article also reported that China shared this intelligence with the
Russians. Is the article correct?
Answer. I am not going to comment on matters of intelligence in an
unclassified setting.
Question. If so, in what aspects?
Answer. I am not going to comment on matters of intelligence in an
unclassified setting.
Question. If not, what is incorrect?
Answer. I am not going to comment on matters of intelligence in an
unclassified setting.
Question. What further details can you provide on these efforts and
the intelligence shared in an unclassified setting?
Answer. I am not going to comment on matters of intelligence in an
unclassified setting.
Question. Will you commit that appropriate officials in the
Administration will brief the Foreign Relations and Intelligence
committees in a classified space on what was shared with China, what
they shared with Russia, and any harm this may have caused to U.S.
national security?
Answer. A classified briefing can be requested through the standard
channels.
Question. The U.S. defense and security assistance budgets are
stretched thin as is, and now we are facing multiple active security
crises. Do you agree that the United States must ensure our defense
resources are up to the task of responding to the Ukraine crisis, while
also ensuring we have enough resources to solidify our presence in the
Indo-Pacific and deter a future contingency there?
Answer. We must ensure our security assistance resources are
sufficient to meet current and projected partner demands and flexible
enough to respond to multiple active and emerging security crises. We
look forward to ongoing and upcoming discussions with you regarding the
balance of security assistance not only to ensure sufficient funds are
planned, requested, and appropriated for global defense needs, but also
to ensure that the Secretary of State remains the lead with respect to
foreign assistance--to include security assistance--as a tool used in
support of U.S. foreign policy priorities.
Question. If so, what is the State Department doing that achieve
this balance and to make sure we continue to prioritize sufficient
funding and security cooperation efforts in the Indo-Pacific?
Answer. Approximately 93 percent of the Foreign Military Financing
(FMF) global topline has historically been subject to earmarks and
directives, which limits the Department's flexibility to use FMF funds
for emerging needs, particularly when it comes to the Indo-Pacific. In
recent years, the Department of State has allocated to the Indo-Pacific
nearly a third (32 percent in FY 2021) of the FMF that is not subject
to other earmarks and directives. We look forward to continued
engagement with the committees regarding FY 2022 resource allocations
in support of the Administration's new Indo-Pacific Strategy, including
in upcoming testimony and other engagements on the President's FY 2023
Budget Request.
Question. Embassy Issues: What, specifically, is the U.S.
Government doing to support the Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs)
working for the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development in-and-around Ukraine?
Answer. The Department of State and interagency colleagues continue
to pursue multiple initiatives to ensure the safety and well-being of
our locally employed (LE) staff both in Ukraine and those who have
temporarily relocated outside of Ukraine. Some of the initiatives
included making salary advances to all LE staff as well as a one-time
supplemental payment and ensuring LE staff have resources to depart
Ukraine if they so choose or are able.
Question. Has specific guidance been issued to the U.S. Embassy and
Mission in Ukraine, regardless of the operative status of such embassy
and mission, to indicate that U.S. personnel are expected to make and
maintain contact with the FSNs under their management authority?
Answer. Mission Ukraine has implemented routine accountability
drills. U.S. supervisors maintain contact with locally employed (LE)
staff via email, phone, and/or text message. U.S. Embassy Kyiv's Human
Resources Office is tracking locations of all LE staff. Our U.S. staff
send updates at least once a week to our LE staff and hold virtual town
halls hosted by the charge d'affaires, with participation by subject
matter experts in the Department of State, to explain benefits,
processes, and updates.
Question. Will FSNs and their dependents who must evacuate Ukraine
be prioritized for support by the U.S. Government, or will they be
forgotten and left behind, as so many were in Afghanistan?
Answer. The Department of State is doing everything it can legally
do to support our Mission Ukraine LE staff. To date, more than 300
locally employed (LE) staff and family members have relocated outside
of Ukraine. Most of our staff, even those who remain in country, are
outside conflict zones. The Department of State has shifted and
streamlined the processing of special immigrant visas (SIVs) for our
Ukrainian LE staff to other posts. A statutory length of service
requirement of 15 years must be met. Adjusting the length of service
requires a change in legislation.
Question. Human Rights in Russia: How can the Administration
empower the opposition politicians, leaders and activists remaining in
Russia?
Answer. We stand in solidarity with the brave opposition
politicians, civil society activists, and human rights defenders who
choose to remain in Russia despite the Kremlin's unprecedented efforts
to suppress dissent. We will continue to use all platforms to shine a
light on the Kremlin's abuses and violations of human rights and
fundamental freedoms. We are working to promote accountability through
visa restrictions and sanctions authorities for the actions of Russian
officials and their widespread suppression of dissent. We also
coordinate closely with partners and Allies, bilaterally and
multilaterally, to demonstrate our shared support for independent
democracy and human rights advocates both in Russia and abroad.
Question. How is the Administration supporting independent press
and free speech through Putin's current crackdown?
Answer. We strongly condemn the Kremlin's shuttering of independent
media outlets and censorship of online platforms, and Russia's adoption
of a new law that threatens prison sentences for unbiased reporting on
Putin's war. We will continue to speak out in defense of freedom of
expression, including as it relates to members of the press in Russia,
and to stand with those independent journalists who continue their work
at great personal risk. I have given a number of interviews to
independent Russian journalists in recent weeks to support their
efforts to report truthfully on the war. Together with European
partners, we are committed to supporting media freedom and the free
flow of information and access to the internet in Russia and the
broader region. The people of Russia deserve to know the truth about
the suffering that is being inflicted by their government on the people
of Ukraine.
Question. Military Support to Ukraine and NATO Allies: Has the
Administration considered offering Turkey a deal; if Turkey transfers
all of its S-400s to Ukraine, the United States will backfill them with
Patriot systems and let them back into the F-35 program?
Answer. The Administration has consistently encouraged Turkey to
dispose of the S-400 system in a manner that would allow Ankara to
comply with U.S. law. The Administration offered to sell Turkey
Patriots on multiple occasions and remains willing to providing a
similarly capable and competitive offer, as we have done in the past.
Turkey's removal from the F-35 program was directed by the Department
of Defense. The Department of Defense is best suited to answer
questions on a potential return to the F-35 program.
Question. I understand Ukraine has pilots trained to fly A-10
Warthogs. Will the United States supply them to Ukraine?
Answer. The Department of Defense is best able to answer if there
are qualified Ukrainian pilots who could effectively employ the A-10 in
combat and if there are A-10s and the supporting weapons, maintenance,
and training support that could be transferred to Ukraine.
Question. What is the objective behind the deployment of troops to
Romania and Poland?
Answer. The objective of our troop deployment to Romania and Poland
is to deter Russian aggression and reassure Allies on the eastern
flank--who are geographically closest to Ukraine--that the United
States and NATO stand ready to defend them if they are attacked. These
deployments demonstrate the United States' iron-clad commitment to our
NATO Allies. NATO unity is the strongest deterrent against Russian
aggression.
Question. How will U.S. troop deployments to Eastern European NATO
allies scale up in response to Russian advances in Ukraine?
Answer. We defer to the Department of Defense for responses on
these issues.
Question. Is the United States considering providing Ukraine with
the Mi-17 helicopters formerly flown by the Afghan military that are
now on the ground in Afghanistan?
Answer. The Administration has already provided five Mi-17
helicopters as Excess Defense Articles to Ukraine. The Administration
is reviewing the current stock of other Excess Defense Articles, to
include Mi-17s, which may be provided to Ukraine to address a range of
operational requirements.
Question. What kinds of air defense capabilities is the United
States considering sending to eastern European allies?
Answer. The Administration has worked with Eastern flank Allies and
partners to enhance their air defense capabilities. Recent purchases of
Patriot air and missile defense systems, F-16 and F-35 fighters, as
well as supporting weapons and training have bolstered the ongoing
efforts to transition countries from Russian-origin equipment to modern
NATO interoperable systems.
Question. In addition to the Patriot systems now on the ground in
Poland, is there any possibility to temporarily send MLRS to the Baltic
states while they (Estonia) wait for their already-ordered systems to
be delivered?
Answer. The Administration is actively pursuing options to increase
partner capabilities for Baltic state countries, to include increasing
MLRS purchases and speeding deliveries. Temporary solutions--in
addition to recent rotations of U.S. and partner nation military
units--provide capable deterrents as current and future purchases are
delivered.
Question. Ukraine and Humanitarian Concerns: The Russian Government
first agreed to establish ``humanitarian corridors'' to enable safe
passage of civilians, then changed the terms of where such corridors
could be established, then ultimately bombarded them anyway. Now the
Russian Government reportedly is seeking to further manipulate the
internationally protected right of civilians to leave the territory
(i.e., evacuate) by forcing them into ``green corridors,'' which
provide passage from besieged areas of Kyiv, Mariupol, and Sumy
exclusively to Russia or Belarus. Can you confirm that the Russian
Government is, once again, violating the Geneva Conventions and
Additional Protocols in Ukraine by forcing civilians who wish to leave
besieged areas into so-called ``green corridors'' that lead such
civilians directly toward their aggressors?
Answer. We have assessed that members of Russia's forces committed
war crimes. We condemn attacks on civilians and humanitarian efforts.
We will continue working with our allies and partners to gather any
evidence of war crimes and other atrocities and make it available to
the appropriate bodies to hold those responsible accountable. The
United States has been clear that all parties to the conflict must
abide by obligations under international humanitarian law related to
the protection of civilians, including those who are fleeing conflict,
and those who are trying to protect and assist them. Humanitarian aid
deliveries must be allowed to operate without interference, and
humanitarian workers must have safe passage to deliver aid and
assistance to those in need.
Question. What specific actions are being taken by the Biden
administration to enable the safe passage of civilians seeking to leave
Ukraine?
Answer. The United States is the largest single-country donor of
humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, providing nearly $302 million to
independent humanitarian organizations so far this year. This
assistance facilitates our humanitarian organization partners' ability
to work tirelessly to provide safe passage for evacuees trying to leave
danger after terms are negotiated directly by the parties to the
conflict. The United States and our allies continue to call on all
parties to the conflict to allow unhindered humanitarian access in
Ukraine and to allow people to flee to their country of choice.
Question. What specific actions are being taken by the UN to enable
the safe passage of civilians seeking to leave Ukraine?
Answer. Safe passage agreements are negotiated by the parties to
the conflict. Humanitarian organizations are working tirelessly to
advise the parties, and when agreement is reached with sufficient
detail, humanitarian organizations escort convoys of civilians to safer
parts of Ukraine and provide assistance. From there, civilians may
choose if they want to stay in Ukraine or seek asylum in a neighboring
country. If they choose to leave, transport is provided by local
authorities and humanitarian organizations. In addition to the
vulnerable Ukrainian citizens who are fleeing conflict in their
country, humanitarian organizations are providing support for third-
country nationals fleeing the conflict.
Question. Ukraine is a major exporter of grains and one of the top
sources of wheat for the World Food Program. April is planting season.
If the planting season is missed due to the Russian Government's
illegal, unjustified, and immoral invasion of Ukraine, the
repercussions for food security could be far-reaching. As we saw during
the global food price crisis between 2007-2008, there is a direct
correlation between food price spikes, food insecurity, and social and
political instability. What contingency plans have been put in place to
mitigate the impact of Russia's invasion of Ukraine on global prices of
staple commodities, including wheat?
Answer. To respond to the challenges that Russia has created with
its unjustified, brutal invasion of Ukraine, the United States is
acting to bolster food security around the globe, in conjunction with
allies and partners. One way we are doing this is by supporting the
United Nations World Food Program to assist up to 3.1 million conflict-
affected individuals in Ukraine, as well as 300,000 crisis-affected
individuals in neighboring countries. We are also urging our partners
to consider how to expand production of key cereal crops, oil seeds,
and associated commodities in a non-trade distorting way, and we remain
committed to maintaining strong and open global markets for staple
agricultural commodities that feed the world. We will continue to work
to mitigate the many harmful effects of Putin's war.
Question. Do you agree that the World Food Program, to the greatest
extent practicable, should continue to prioritize the local and
regional purchase of wheat from Ukraine in an effort not only to meet
immediate needs in real time, but also to help promote early recovery
of Ukraine's agricultural economy?
Answer. I agree that the World Food Program (WFP) should prioritize
the local and regional purchase of wheat from Ukraine, if WFP deems it
practicable. WFP sources 50 percent of its wheat from Ukraine. Russia's
unprovoked war against Ukraine has severely impacted the planting,
harvest, and export of wheat from Ukraine. WFP estimates that Russia's
further invasion of Ukraine will cost it $29-$50 million more per month
in increased wheat costs alone. If WFP determines it can procure wheat
from Ukraine in the quality and quantities it needs at a reasonable
price and in a reasonable timeframe, it should do so. Ultimately, these
decisions rest with WFP.
Question. Should the World Food Program halt all purchase of
agricultural commodities from Russia? If not, why not?
Answer. Russia's ongoing war against Ukraine has stopped trade in
Black Sea wheat and put at risk 50 percent of WFP's wheat supply. WFP
estimates that Russia's invasion will cost it $29-$50 million more per
month in wheat costs alone, hurting the world's most vulnerable people.
U.S. sanctions in response to Putin's war are carefully calibrated to
allow for humanitarian activities by individuals, companies, and NGOs
to continue, including transactions related to agricultural
commodities. The goal of allowing trade in these commodities is to
mitigate the impact of sanctions on humanitarian conditions around the
world. The WFP should exercise discretion when sourcing wheat, noting
Russia stands to benefit from the higher prices caused by its war.
Question. Should the President seek a global waiver of U.S.
purchase and shipping requirements under the Food for Peace Act, so
that existing resources can be used for the local and regional
procurement of lifesaving food aid commodities, thereby helping to meet
needs in areas beset by conflict that are dependent upon Ukraine's
exports in real time? If not, why not?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
relies on a variety of modalities to meet emergency food assistance
needs in an efficient, responsible, and timely manner, to include both
local, regional, and U.S. sourcing of commodities. The food and
nutrition needs of vulnerable groups vary significantly based on
location, market access, food availability, nutritional status,
security concerns, and other factors, and thus it is critical for USAID
to have flexibility in procurement and shipping requirements in order
to appropriately respond to the growing complexity and number of global
humanitarian crises. With the disruptions to Ukrainian exports and
future production prospects, Title II emergency food assistance funding
is an important tool that allows USAID to provide U.S. in-kind
commodities to vulnerable people where markets may not be functioning
and where food is scarce.
Question. Non-Ukrainian Refugees Fleeing Ukraine: Which African
governments has the Department of State engaged concerning the
challenges their nationals face evacuating from Ukraine?
Answer. The United States advocates that all people should have
access to international protection. When we learned third country
nationals' fleeing Russia's aggression against Ukraine faced barriers,
we engaged the government of Ukraine and Ukraine's neighbors. They
immediately took action to ensure protection for third country
nationals seeking refuge. The U.S. has engaged with counterparts from
the African Union, Nigeria, Uganda, Central African Republic, Chad,
Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, and
others. We continue to work with our African and international
organization partners to provide protection and assist those who wish
to return home.
Question. How has the Department of State engaged the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on the challenges being faced by non-
Ukrainian refugees fleeing Ukraine?
Answer. The United States has regularly engaged with and supported
UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and other
international humanitarian organizations as they respond to the needs
of refugee populations, including third country nationals, in
coordination with the states neighboring Ukraine. U.S. supported
assistance from UNHCR, IOM, and other international organizations
specifically addressed the unique protection needs of third country
nationals, as well as other groups with additional vulnerabilities. In
addition, the United States has allocated $5.5 million to our
international organization partners for the safe and voluntary return
of third country nationals to their home countries.
Question. Understanding the potential for propaganda and
disinformation stemming from the allegations and cases of racism
recounted by non-Ukrainians, particularly those from Africa, the Middle
East, and South Asia, which messages and public diplomacy tools has the
Department of State used to engage on this issue?
Answer. We consider it essential that every individual seeking
refuge from conflict and violence be treated equitably, with dignity,
and with respect for their human rights. We are coordinating closely
with allies and partners to help ensure every individual, regardless of
race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender identity, sexual
orientation, or disability status, crossing from Ukraine into
neighboring countries is received with dignity and respect, and with
the protection assistance circumstances require. We are encouraging
countries in the region to adhere to their respective international
refugee law and human rights obligations and to respect the principle
of non-refoulement. We are also spreading these messages widely on all
Department of State media platforms globally. More broadly, the United
States condemns racism in all its forms around the globe.
______
Responses of Ms. Victoria Nuland to Questions
Submitted by Senator Todd Young
Question. India announced February 25 it was exploring a rupee-
ruble payment system to facilitate trade with Russia, despite global
sanctions. What is the current status of this project?
Answer. The Government of India is discussing a rupee-ruble
currency trade arrangement to address payment issues faced by Indian
exporters and importers. Indian media reported such an arrangement
would focus on sectors not subject to sanctions, including energy,
agriculture, and pharmaceuticals, while avoiding the defense sector.
The U.S. Government has discouraged India from pursuing payment
mechanisms or taking other steps that could undermine the impact of
sanctions on Russia.
Question. What options is the Administration exploring to reduce
Indian dependence on Russian and Belarussian-sourced potash and other
agricultural inputs?
Answer. The Administration is encouraging allies and partners to
implement emergency measures that incentivize domestic producers to
temporarily increase fertilizer production and ensure adequate supply.
We are also consulting with Multilateral Development Banks, the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) to encourage financing of projects to
expand fertilizer production, as well as increase the efficient use of
fertilizer.
Question. Given that India has legacy Russian military equipment,
is the Administration considering military sales to India that would
enable the country to provide its used military equipment to Ukraine?
Answer. The Administration values India as a partner and has
encouraged India's ongoing efforts to reduce its dependence on Russian
military equipment. Total U.S. defense trade with India has grown
significantly in recent years, from near zero in 2008 to over $20
billion in 2021. Indian-Russian defense collaboration goes back to the
1960's, and divestiture from legacy equipment is a slow process. We are
working with India on alternatives.
Question. What other opportunities are available for India to
signal its support for Ukraine and international democratic norms?
Answer. In the Joint Statement issued following the April 11 U.S.-
India 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue, the United States and India ``urged an
immediate cessation of hostilities,'' ``unequivocally condemned
civilian deaths,'' and ``underscored that the contemporary global order
has been built on the UN Charter, respect for international law, and
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states.'' However,
India so far has not publicly condemned Russia's invasion, which is in
clear contravention to the rules-based order India seeks to uphold.
India has provided Ukraine with valuable humanitarian assistance,
including medical supplies.
Question. How have allies and the private sector responded to
sanctions imposed to date on Russia? Are there unexpected side effects
from our sanctions efforts on allies?
Answer. Since the start of the Russia's war in Ukraine, more than
30 allies and partners have joined us in rolling out sanctions on more
than 2,100 Russian and Belarusian targets. Our allies and partners have
shown an unprecedented, shared commitment to work together to impose
costs on Russia. For example, New Zealand has joined in national
sanctions for the first time in its history. Similarly, more than 600
multinational companies have pulled out of Russia. We are continuing
our engagement with the private sector in order to answer questions
and, along with our Treasury colleagues, are working with our allies
and partners on ways to mitigate the impacts of our sanctions on them.
Question. Is the Administration considering seizure of frozen
Russian-related assets held in U.S. accounts?
Answer. We have worked with foreign counterparts on a number of
high-profile asset seizures, such as the April seizure in Spain of
Viktor Vekselberg's $90 million yacht the Tango. On April 28, the
Administration submitted a comprehensive proposal to expand forfeiture
authorities. We will work with our interagency partners to act on these
authorities, provided they are granted.
Question. The existing licenses are written with remarkably broad
language, authorizing transactions across a variety of sectors. Is the
Administration considering further restricting the scope of permitted
transactions under existing sanctions?
Answer. Since Russia's further invasion of Ukraine, the United
States has imposed a rigorous set of sanctions on Russia for Putin's
brutal war. In order to focus the impact of these measures on Russia
and avoid inadvertent harm to our allies and partners, we have issued a
set of General Licenses which provide for the timely wind down of
business activity with the Russian Federation. In addition, the
Administration is committed to supporting humanitarian activities and
avoiding restrictions on life-essential goods like food and medicine.
Question. The company behind Nordstream 2 fired all its employees,
but there are conflicting reports as to whether it will declare
bankruptcy. What is the latest legal status of the Nordstream 2
companies?
Answer. On February 23, Secretary Blinken terminated the waiver and
imposed sanctions under the Protecting Europe's Energy Security Act
(PEESA), as amended, on Nord Stream 2 AG (NS2AG), and its CEO, Matthias
Warnig. Pursuant to PEESA and Executive Order 14039, the corporate
officers of NS2AG are also subject to visa restrictions. On February
28, Swiss Economics Minister Guy Parmelin announced all NS2AG staff
were ``made redundant.'' We have seen--but cannot confirm--media
reports of NS2AG's intention to declare bankruptcy in late March 2022.
Question. How will the Administration proceed if the Nordstream 2
assets are liquidated or sold to another party?
Answer. The Administration remains committed to implementing
sanctions targeting Nord Stream 2, including PEESA, as amended.
Individuals and entities knowingly engaged in sanctionable conduct
related to Nord Stream 2 face similar sanctions risks. The
Administration continues to examine entities potentially engaged in
sanctionable behavior. All property and interests in property of
persons sanctioned under PEESA, as amended, that are in or come within
the United States or are in the possession or control of U.S. persons
must be blocked.
Question. What is the status of Gazprom oil deliveries to Europe
via existing Ukraine pipelines?
Answer. Russia continues to deliver oil to Europe including through
pipelines that transit Ukraine. The Administration supports European
efforts to diversify away from Russian energy supplies, including
through the European Commission-U.S. Joint Task Force to Reduce
Europe's Dependence on Russian Fossil Fuels.
Question. How is the Administration working with Taiwan in
reviewing and learning from the Ukraine war?
Answer. Public polling suggests Russia's invasion has focused
Taiwan and its leaders on the need to undertake reforms to improve its
ability to repel a PRC attack. The U.S. Government has focused
extensively on supporting Taiwan through the acquisition of asymmetric
capabilities and the Departments of State and Defense are also
coordinating closely with Taiwan on non-material solutions to improve
Taiwan's defenses. This includes working with Taiwan on increasing its
resiliency across the military and non-military domains by looking at
its reserve/mobilization reforms and civil-military integration.
Question. Does the Administration have any insight into U.S.
citizens in Ukraine that are participating as military combatants?
Answer. We do not have authoritative numbers of U.S. citizens
fighting in Ukraine, as U.S. citizens are not required to register
their travel to a foreign country with the Department of State or
update us on changes to their travel plans.
U.S. citizens who travel to Ukraine, especially to participate in
fighting, face significant risks to personal safety, including the very
real risk of capture or death. The Department Travel Advisory for
Ukraine states U.S. citizens should not travel to Ukraine and those in
Ukraine should depart immediately if safe to do so using commercial or
other private available options for ground transportation.
Question. Are we providing any diplomatic assistance to U.S.
citizens traveling into Ukraine?
Answer. The U.S. Government is extremely limited in its ability to
provide consular service to U.S. citizens in Ukraine. The Department
Travel Advisory indicates that U.S. citizens should not travel to
Ukraine and those in Ukraine should depart immediately if it is safe to
do so.
The United States is not able to evacuate U.S. citizens from
Ukraine, including those U.S. citizens who travel to Ukraine to engage
in the ongoing war.
Question. What would be the implications of U.S. citizens killed or
captured by Russian forces in Ukraine?
Answer. The United States expects Russia to respect its obligations
under the law of war and other applicable international law. The
Department's Travel Advisory states that U.S. citizens should not
travel to Ukraine due to, among other reasons, reports of Russian
Government security officials singling out U.S. citizens in Ukraine.
U.S. citizens who are detained by Russian authorities in Ukraine may be
subject to potential attempts at criminal prosecution and may be at
heightened risk of mistreatment.
Question. How would the Administration respond if Russia claimed
private U.S. citizen actions signaled direct U.S. involvement in the
conflict?
Answer. The United States would respond that it is not a
participant in the war and caution Russia not to take further
escalatory action. We continue to advise U.S. citizens against travel
to Ukraine and that those in Ukraine should depart immediately if it is
safe to do so.
Question. What is the Administration's assessment of the strength,
influence, and role of the Azov Battalion with Ukrainian defense
structure?
Answer. The militia formed in 2014 that called itself the ``Azov
Battalion'' has not existed for several years.
The unit called the Special Purpose Regiment Azov is part of the
National Guard of Ukraine. It reports to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy
through the Minister of Internal Affairs. Under martial law, all
National Guard units fall under military command. As one unit among
many in the National Guard, it does not have any particular influence
over the structure or policy of Ukraine's defense forces.
The Special Purpose Regiment Azov, together with Patrol Police and
KORD (SWAT) officers and members of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, remain
at the Azovstal plant in Russian-besieged Mariupol. Russian forces,
many of which are suspected of war crimes, continue to subject the
Ukrainian defenders of Mariupol to intensive, daily attacks and
bombardment. Mariupol's bravery has become a symbol of Ukraine's
determination to resist Russia's subjugation.
Question. What steps are the Administration and European allies
taking to prevent Azov units from utilizing U.S.-made munitions and
weapons?
Answer. Since 2014, Embassy Kyiv has routinely performed
comprehensive vetting for all security force recipients of U.S.-
provided training, equipment, or other security assistance to ensure
compliance with the Leahy law. The United States also provided human
rights training as part of the transfer of military equipment. These
vetting mechanisms precluded groups like the 2014-era Azov Battalion
from being direct recipients of our assistance.
During the ongoing war in Ukraine, Embassy Kyiv personnel retain
the capability to conduct Leahy Vetting of security assistance
recipients and have been doing so. The Embassy, in coordination with
relevant offices in Washington, DC, also conducts regular end-use
monitoring in accordance with international law and consistent with
agreements and licensing to ensure that security and defense articles
are used only for the purpose they were provided for.
The State Department continues to monitor, to the best of our
ability during wartime, reports of human rights abuses by groups and
entities that could be of concern.
We have also engaged with the Ukrainian Government about steps it
can take to avoid playing into Russia's disinformation efforts which
conflate the current Azov Regiment--which is not the same entity as the
disbanded 2014-era Azov Battalion and groups formerly affiliated with
the Battalion.
The Azov Regiment is currently encircled in the Azovstal steel
works in Mariupol, where it is defending both the city and its civilian
population against attacks by Russia's forces.
Question. How is the Administration supporting efforts to document
alleged mass atrocity crimes and other forms of civilian harm by
Russia?
Answer. Given the justice and accountability imperatives Ukraine is
facing, the U.S. Government is investing in multiple lines of effort.
One flagship program out of the Office of Global Criminal Justice
offers direct support to the Office of the Prosecutor General and
Mobile Justice Teams that support OPG War Crimes Unit and regional
prosecutor efforts to conduct field investigations. Other programs
include: training and technical assistance for civil society efforts to
gather, document, and report on violations of international
humanitarian law; expanding access to justice for victims of atrocities
and other abuses; data collection, reporting, and information sharing
on atrocities and other human rights abuses including through analysis
of satellite imagery and other data feeds; laying the foundation for
restorative justice; and enhancing the ability of civil society,
journalists, and other partners to safely and securely share
information.
Question. How is the Administration supporting accountability for
Russia including through multilateral investigation mechanisms as well
as the collection and protection of evidence of mass atrocity crimes
and other human rights violations?
Answer. The United States supports international efforts to examine
atrocities in Ukraine, including those conducted by the International
Criminal Court, the UN, the Experts Mission under the Moscow Mechanism
of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and others.
We will continue to assist with documentation efforts, including by
supporting efforts to ensure that evidence collected can be safely and
securely transmitted and stored. We helped establish the Human Rights
Council's Commission of Inquiry, ensuring it has a mandate to
investigate, document, analyze, and share evidence of violations of
international humanitarian law and human rights violations and abuses
with appropriate judicial bodies--and to identify the individuals and
entities responsible. We will also continue to support the UN Human
Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine to expand its work in response to
Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
______
Letter From Ruslan Stefanchuk, Parliament of Ukraine,
Dated March 8, 2022
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]