[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 22 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S506-S507]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                Ukraine

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today to speak on a topic of 
global importance and mounting urgency, and that is Russia's continued 
aggression toward Ukraine.
  After months of shifting tens of thousands of troops and military 
equipment, some from its easternmost military district, Russia has 
built up a military presence around the northern, eastern, and southern 
flanks of Ukraine. Russia has also amassed forces in Belarus under the 
guise of joint military exercises.
  Unfortunately, there are no indications that the situation with 
Ukraine and Russia has taken any steps toward deescalation. If 
anything, Ukraine and our European partners are beginning to accept the 
U.S. assessment that Russia's buildup is continuing on a trend to 
permit a well-resourced and supported attack in mid- to late February.
  As the cost of his deployment adds up and the so-called exercises in 
Belarus come to an end on February 20, Vladimir Putin will reach a 
decision point. I say this not to provoke alarm but to emphasize that 
the United States and our security partners must do what we can while 
we can. It is critical to demonstrate that there will be a unified 
response from the West, including when it comes to sanctions and 
providing military equipment to Ukraine, so that we send the message to 
Putin that an attack would be a severe miscalculation on his part.
  Is an attack from Russia truly imminent?
  Well, so far, Putin's demands are nonstarters. Russia demanded that 
NATO deny Ukraine or any other free nation in Eastern Europe the 
ability to join this defensive alliance. Russia also demanded that NATO 
revert to its 1997 posture and capabilities.
  These aren't serious demands, and the administration rightly rejected 
both. Unfortunately, at this point, Putin would likely find it 
humiliating to back down from such a costly military buildup without 
getting any concessions from the West. Many fear that he has backed 
himself into a corner where he may feel like his best option is to 
attack, as disastrous as that would be.
  Now, the Ukrainians will say: How can Russia start a war with 
Ukraine? We have been at war for 8 years.
  That is a critical point to remember, particularly when Vladimir 
Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are accusing the 
United States and NATO of stoking tensions and assuming a threatening 
military posture.
  Think about it: Russia has illegally occupied Crimea and backed 
separatist forces in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine for 8 years 
as of this month. Yet Russia has the temerity to call NATO, which is a 
defensive alliance, and Ukraine--a free country that wishes to join 
that defensive pact--the aggressors. I should add that this is not a 
case of NATO's moving east, as the Russians will claim, but of 
independent countries seeking, of their own volition, to cast off old, 
imperialist Soviet influence and align with the West.
  Make no mistake about it. Russia is the aggressor here, and we know 
that Putin wants to destabilize an independent Ukraine and bring it 
back into Russia's sphere of influence, similar to what he has done 
with Belarus, and that includes making it unthinkable for Ukraine, 
Georgia, or any other nation to seek or join NATO.
  There are many possible scenarios for a Russian attack, including an 
attempt by Russia to try to solidify control of eastern Ukraine, pick 
up territory along the coast, or connect a land bridge to Crimea. Any 
Russian attack would also surely include cyber and information 
operations--behavior which we have already seen. Russia could overwhelm 
Ukrainian defenses and strike command, control, and communications 
centers in an opening salvo before crossing the border, but its long-
term course of action remains less certain.
  Ukrainians of all ages are showing their renewed willingness to put 
up a fight and to determine their own future, and Putin has to weigh 
any possible gains against the risk of high casualties or an 
insurgency.
  Putin could also threaten Kyiv and try to force concessions 
elsewhere, but his calculus must already include the likely response of 
crippling sanctions and isolation, not to mention driving other nations 
like Sweden and Finland to align more closely with NATO.
  There have also been reports that Putin, whether by military attack 
or his little green men, could seek to overthrow President Zelenskyy. 
Russia has, of course, denied the claim, but Putin would certainly 
prefer a puppet regime to that of President Zelenskyy.
  The uncertainty surrounding what Putin could do does not lower the 
threat of a Russian attack on Ukraine. And the latest indicators 
suggest Russia is still pressing forward to prepare for an imminent 
attack. Reports show that Russia is moving blood supplies, medical 
materials, and more fuel tankers to its west and to Belarus. Blood 
supplies are especially not required for a so-called exercise with 
Belarus; they are meant for casualties.
  We need to take these developments seriously, pursuing a diplomatic 
deescalation, while making sure Ukraine can put up a fight and that 
NATO is ready and able to defend against any direct Russian 
aggressions.
  On the diplomatic side, the United States and Russia have traded 
negotiation letters. As I noted earlier, Vladimir Putin is demanding a 
ransom for Ukraine's safety--a permanent ban on Ukraine's inclusion in 
NATO--and demanding that NATO, a freely associating defensive alliance, 
take steps to weaken its own security. These aren't serious demands.
  So with no resolution in sight, the United States and its allies 
continue to move security assistance to Ukraine, including ammunition, 
missiles, and rockets, while preparing to reinforce NATO troops in 
border states.
  The Javelins and Stingers the West is sending Ukraine may do little 
to stop Russian long-range fires or airstrikes, but they could still 
impose a significant cost if Russia tries to hold significant 
territory, especially in urban areas. Ukrainians are prepared to put up 
a fight, and we should provide them with the arms that they need to dig 
in.
  I hope the administration and the majority party will take this 
threat to Ukraine seriously, utilize any remaining levers of American 
influence to deter a renewed attack, and, if Putin proceeds, make him 
immediately realize that it was a miscalculation.
  This will take coordinated, lethal military assistance and strong 
sanctions, including against the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline.
  It will be critical that Democrats come to realize that Nord Stream 2 
is one of Putin's top geopolitical priorities. When this administration 
waived sanctions on the pipeline, despite the overwhelming opinion that 
the pipeline will make Europe more reliant on--and

[[Page S507]]

vulnerable to--Russian energy and will be an economic blow to Ukraine, 
Putin saw that he wouldn't be challenged.
  This is a crisis of Putin's making, but we didn't get here overnight. 
Waiving sanctions in Nord Stream 2 is one of the many missed 
opportunities to signal strength against Putin. We first saw Russia 
amassing troops on Ukraine's border last April. Yet here we are, 
roughly 10 months later, scrambling to deliver lethal defensive 
military aid.
  The Biden administration has been too slow to respond to the mounting 
crisis and is now playing catchup. Exhibit A is that the administration 
just this Monday named its pick to serve as Ambassador to Ukraine. Of 
all the times to have a top diplomat in a country to prove that we are 
taking its situation seriously and to coordinate assistance, this is 
it. This follows a year of the administration slow-rolling assistance 
to Ukraine and seemingly springing to action only after the United 
Kingdom and others began overtly equipping Ukraine.
  It is essential that we present a credible threat to Putin, but, 
unfortunately, I think he has pegged our President as a benign 
counterpart. Putin can look at America and see an unpopular President 
as risk-averse and spinning his wheels on a polarizing and flailing 
domestic agenda, not to mention that he can look at President Biden's 
botched withdrawal from Afghanistan and the risk to our defense 
modernization efforts from another continuing resolution and conclude 
that Democrats and the President pose little threat to Russia's 
ambitions.
  Given the Biden administration's record, I have concerns about the 
President's willingness to stand up to Russia, but I very much hope 
these concerns are unfounded. We simply cannot afford to fail in this 
situation.
  This is Ukraine's fight, but the implications of an attack will go 
far beyond its borders. We cannot accept that one nation can simply 
attack and subjugate another. And we cannot be so naive to think that 
Russia would stop with an invasion of Ukraine. The bear would still be 
in the woods, and Putin would love nothing more than to challenge or 
break the credibility of NATO or the United States. We cannot accept 
that scenario or allow Russia to dictate our own security posture with 
respect to NATO.
  The only way to reject that future is by standing with our partners 
and staring down Putin's open aggression. Shoring up our NATO presence 
and putting troops on high alert are steps in the right direction. I am 
sure Ukraine currently feels surrounded and outgunned, but we need to 
make clear to Ukraine and to Vladimir Putin that Ukraine is not alone; 
that the free nations of the West will stand with Ukraine against 
Russian aggression and that the United States will make good on its 
NATO commitments.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________