[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 27 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S632-S636]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Ukraine
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, before I begin, I would like to ask
unanimous consent to put into the Congressional Record an open letter
to the Russian leadership from the Russian Congress of Intellectuals,
who state:
Our position is simple: Russia does not need a war with
Ukraine and the West. Such a war is devoid of legitimacy and
has no moral basis.
This is a very brave statement made by Russian intellectuals.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Review of Books, Feb. 4, 2022]
An Open Letter to the Russian Leadership
russian congress of intellectuals
Our position is simple: Russia does not need a war with
Ukraine and the West. Such a war is devoid of legitimacy and
has no moral basis.
There is an ever-increasing flow of alarming news about a
possible Russian invasion of Ukraine. Reports are emerging
about stepped-up recruitment of mercenaries within Russia and
the transfer of fuel and military equipment to Ukraine's
Donetsk and Luhansk regions. In response, Ukraine is arming
itself and NA TO is sending additional forces into Eastern
Europe. The tension is not abating, but rather mounting.
Russian citizens are becoming de facto hostages of a
reckless adventurism that has come to typify Russia's foreign
policy. Not only must Russians live with the uncertainty of
whether a large-scale war will begin, but they are also
experiencing a sharp rise in prices and a devaluation of
their currency. Is this the sort of policy Russians need? Do
they want war--and are they ready to bear the brunt of it?
Have they authorized the authorities to play with their lives
in this way?
But no one asks Russian citizens for their opinion. There
is no public debate. State television presents only a single
viewpoint--that of the warmongers. Direct military threats,
aggression and hatred are aimed at Ukraine, the US, and the
West. But the most dangerous thing is that the war is being
depicted not only as permissible, but as inevitable. This is
an attempt to deceive the population, to impose upon them the
idea of waging a crusade against the West, rather than
investing in the country's development and improving living
standards. The cost of the conflict is never discussed, but
the price--the huge, bloody price--will be paid by the common
Russian people.
We, responsible citizens and patriots of Russia, appeal to
Russia's political leadership. We openly and publicly call
out the Party of War that has been formed within the
government.
We represent the viewpoint of those in Russian society who
reject war, who consider unlawful the use of military threats
and the deployment of a blackmailing style in foreign policy.
We reject war, whereas you, the Party of War, consider it
acceptable. We stand for peace and prosperity for all Russian
citizens, whereas you put our lives on the line for the sake
of political games. You deceive and manipulate people,
whereas we tell them the truth. You do not speak in the name
of the Russian population--we do. For decades, the Russian
people, who lost millions of lives in past wars, have lived
by the saying: ``if only there were no war.'' Have you
forgotten this?
Our position is quite simple. Russia does not need a war
with Ukraine and the West. No one is threatening us, no one
is attacking us. Policies based on the idea of such a war are
immoral and irresponsible and must not be conducted in the
name of the Russian people. Such a war is devoid of
legitimacy and has no moral basis. Russian diplomacy should
take no other position than a categorical rejection of such a
war.
Not only does such a war not reflect Russia's interests,
but it also threatens the country's very existence. The
senseless actions of the country's political leadership,
which is pushing us in this direction, will inevitably lead
to a mass anti-war movement in Russia. Each of us will
naturally play a part in it.
We will do everything in our power to prevent this war, and
if it begins, to stop it.
Signed,
Lev Ponomaryov, human rights activist; Valery Borshchev,
human rights activist; Svetlana Gannushkina, human rights
activist; Leonid Gozman, politician; Liya Akhedzhakova,
actress and People's Artist of the Russian Federation; Andrey
Makarevich, musician; Garri Bardin, director; Viktor
Shenderovich, writer; Tatiana Lazareva, TV presenter; Andrey
Zubov, historian and politician; Andrey Nechaev, politician;
Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer; Alexander Belavin, physicist;
Nikolai Rozanov, corresponding member of the Russian Academy
of Sciences.
Natalia Evdokimova, executive secretary of the Human Rights
Council of St. Petersburg; Efim Khazanov, academician of the
Russian Academy of Sciences; Hya Ginzburg, physicist and
professor; Zoya Svetova, journalist; Grigory Yavlinsky,
politician; Lev Shlosberg, politician; Boris Vishnevsky,
politician; Lev Gudkov, sociologist and professor; Igor
Chubais, philosopher; Tatyana Voltskaya, poet and journalist;
Boris Sokolov, historian and writer; Mikhail Krieger, civic
activist; Veronika Dolina, poet; Vladimir Mirzoev, director;
Ksenia Larina, journalist.
Andrey Piontkovsky, publicist; Mark Urnov, professor,
National Research University Higher School of Economics;
Mikhail Lavrenov, writer; Nikolai Prokudin, writer; Elena
Fanailova, poet and journalist; Grigory Mikhnov-Vaytenko,
clergyman; Lev Levinson, human rights activist; Sergei
Germann, member of the Writer's Union of Russia; Vladimir
Alex, civil activist; Yuri Gimmelfarb, journalist; Yuri
Samodurov, human rights activist; Evgeniy Tsymbal, civil
activist; Vitaly Dixon, writer; Natalya Mavlevich,
translator; Ashraf Fattakhov, lawyer.
Viktor Yunak, writer; Valeria Prikhodkina, human rights
activist; Elena Grigorieva, children's poet; Vera
Shabelnikova, editor; Mair Makhaev, philosopher and linguist;
Grigory Amnuel, producer, director, publicist, and
politician. Sergei Krivenko, human rights activist;
[[Page S633]]
Yaroslav Nikitenko, environmental and civil activist and
scientist; Tatyana Yankelevich Bonner, human rights activist;
Nikita Sokolov, historian; Anatoly Golubovsky, historian;
Nikolai Rekubratsky, researcher; Vitold Abankin, human rights
activist; Elena Bukvareva, doctor of biological sciences;
Igor Toporkov, human rights activist; Evgeniy Kalakin,
director.
Liudmila Alpern, human rights activist; Nina Caterly,
writer; Vladimir Zalishchak, municipal deputy; Olga Mazurova,
doctor; Oleg Motkov, director; Natalya Pakhsaryan, professor
at Moscow State University; Elena Volkova, philologist and
culturologist; Valery Otstavnykh, director and journalist;
Georgy Karetnikov, civil activist; Marina Boroditskaya,
writer; Sergey Lutsenko, animation supervisor; Alexey Diveev,
programmer; Tatyana Vorozheykina, lecturer at the Free
University of Moscow; Tatyana Kotlyar, human rights activist.
Anatoly Barmin, pharmacist; Valentin Skvortsov, professor
at Moscow State University; Lev Ingel, physicist; Mikhail
Mints, historian; Leonid Chubarov, professor; Katya-Anna
Taguti, artist; Elena Efros, civil activist; Anna Shapiro,
director; Tatyana Dorutina, member of the Human Rights
Council of St. Petersburg; Arkady Konikov, programmer; Sergei
Pechenkin, civil activist; Anatoly Razumov, historian;
Alexander Sannikov, colonel of the Russian Armed Forces
(ret'd); Anatoly Tsirlin, professor; Karen Hakobyan,
professor.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as I speak today Europe, for the first
time in almost 80 years, is faced with the threat of a major invasion.
A large nation threatens a smaller, less powerful neighbor, surrounding
it on three sides with well over 100,000 troops as well as tanks and
artillery.
My colleagues, as we have painfully learned, wars have unintended
consequences. They rarely turn out the way the planners and experts
tell us they will. Just ask the officials who provided rosy scenarios
for the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, only to be proven
horribly wrong. Just ask the mothers of the soldiers who were killed or
wounded in action during those wars. Just ask the families of the
millions of civilians who became collateral damage in those wars.
The war in Vietnam cost us 59,000 American deaths and many others who
came home wounded in body and spirit. The casualties in Vietnam, Laos,
and Cambodia are almost incalculable, but they were in the millions. In
Afghanistan, what began as a response to the horrific attack against us
on 9-11-2001 eventually became a 20-year war, costing us $2 trillion
and over 3,500 Americans who were killed, not to mention tens of
thousands of Afghan civilians.
George W. Bush claimed in 2003 that the United States had ``put the
Taliban out of business forever.'' Well, not quite the case--the
Taliban is in power today.
The war in Iraq, which was sold to the American people by stroking
fear of a mushroom cloud from Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass
destruction, led to the deaths of some 4,500 U.S. troops and the
wounding--physical and emotional--of tens of thousands of others. It
led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the displacement
of over 5 million people, and regional destabilization whose
consequences the world continues to grapple with today.
In other words, despite all of the rosy scenarios we heard for those
foreign policy and military interventions, it turned out that the
experts were wrong and millions of innocent people paid the price. That
is why we must do everything possible to find a diplomatic resolution
to prevent what would be an enormously destructive war in Ukraine.
No one knows exactly what the human costs of such a war would be.
There are estimates, however, that come from our own military and
intelligence community that there could be over 50,000 civilian
casualties in Ukraine, not to mention millions of refugees flooding
neighboring countries as they flee what could be the worst European
conflict since World War II.
In addition, of course, there would be many thousands of deaths
within the Ukrainian and Russian militaries. There is also the
possibility that this regional war could escalate to other parts of
Europe, a continent with many nuclear weapons, and what might happen
then is beyond imagination.
But that is not all. The sanctions against Russia that would be
imposed as a consequence of its actions and Russia's threatened
response to those sanctions could result in massive economic upheaval
with impacts on energy and gas and oil prices in our country, banking,
food supplies, and the day-to-day needs of ordinary people throughout
the entire world. It is likely that Russians will not be the only
people suffering from sanctions. They would be felt throughout Europe.
They would be felt right here in the United States and likely around
the world.
And by the way--and we haven't discussed this terribly much--at a
time when the scientific community tells us that climate change is an
existential threat to the planet, any hope of international cooperation
to address global climate change and to address future pandemics would
likely suffer a major setback.
It should be absolutely clear about who is most responsible for the
looming crisis, and that is Russian President Vladimir Putin. Having
already seized parts of Ukraine in 2014, Putin now threatens to
take over the entire country and destroy Ukrainian democracy. There
should be no disagreement that that behavior is totally unacceptable.
In my view, we must unequivocally support the sovereignty of Ukraine
and make clear that the international community will impose severe
consequences on Putin and his fellow oligarchs if he does not change
course.
With that said, I am extremely concerned when I hear the familiar
drumbeats in Washington--the bellicose rhetoric that gets amplified
before every war--demanding that we must show strength, demanding that
we must get tough, demanding that we must not engage in appeasement.
A simplistic refusal to recognize the complex roots of the tensions
in the region undermines the ability of negotiators to reach a peaceful
resolution.
Now, I know it is not very popular or politically correct, I guess,
in Washington, to consider the perspectives of our adversaries, but I
think it is important that we do so if we are going to formulate good
policy. I think it is helpful to consider this. One of the
precipitating factors of this crisis--one, not the only one--at least
from Russia's perspective, is the prospect of an enhanced security
relationship between Ukraine and the United States and Western Europe,
including what Russia sees as the threat of Ukraine joining the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, a military alliance originally
created in 1949 to confront the Soviet Union.
It is good to know some history.
When Ukraine became independent after the Soviet Union collapsed in
1991, Russian leaders made clear their concerns about the prospect of
former Soviet states becoming part of NATO and positioning hostile
military forces along Russia's border. U.S. officials recognized these
concerns as legitimate at the time. One of those officials was William
Perry, who served as Defense Secretary under President Bill Clinton. In
a 2017 interview, Perry said:
In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at
the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years I
have to say that the United States deserves much of the
blame.
Further:
Our first action that really set us off in a bad direction
was when NATO started to expand, bringing in eastern European
nations, some of them bordering Russia.
That is former Secretary of State William Perry.
Another U.S. official who acknowledged these concerns is former U.S.
Diplomat Bill Burns, who is now head of the CIA in the Biden
administration. In his memoir, Burns quotes a memo he wrote while
serving as counselor for political affairs at the U.S. Embassy in
Moscow in 1995.
Hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally
felt across the domestic political spectrum here.
Over 10 years later, in 2008, Burns wrote in a memo to Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice:
Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines
for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and
a half years of conversations with key Russian players . . .
I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as
anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.
So, again, these concerns were not just invented yesterday by Putin
out of thin air. Clearly, invasion by Russia is not an answer, neither
is intransigence by NATO. It is important to recognize, for example,
that Finland, one of the most developed and democratic countries in the
world, borders Russia and has chosen not to be a member of NATO. Sweden
and Austria are other
[[Page S634]]
examples of prosperous and democratic countries that have made the same
choice.
Vladimir Putin may be a liar and a demagogue, but it is hypocritical
for the United States to insist that we as a nation do not accept the
principle of spheres of influence. For the last 200 years, our country
has operated under the Monroe Doctrine, embracing the principle that as
the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere, the United States has the
right--according to the United States--to intervene against any country
that might threaten our alleged interests. That is U.S. policy. And
under this doctrine, the United States has undermined and overthrown at
least a dozen countries throughout Latin America, Central America, and
the Caribbean.
As many might recall, in 1962, we came to the brink of nuclear war
with the Soviet Union. Now, why was that? Why did we almost come to the
brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union?
Well, we did that in response to the placement of Soviet missiles in
Cuba, 90 miles from our shore, and the Kennedy administration saw that
as an unacceptable threat to national security. We said it is
unacceptable for a hostile country to have a significant military
presence 90 miles away from our shore.
Let us be clear. The Monroe Doctrine is not ancient history. As
recently as 2018, Donald Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson,
called the Monroe Doctrine ``as relevant today as it was the day it was
written.''
In 2019, former Trump National Security Advisor, John Bolton,
declared ``the Monroe Doctrine is alive and well.''
To put it simply, even if Russia were not ruled by a corrupt,
oligarchic, authoritarian leader like Vladimir Putin, Russia, like the
United States, would still have an interest in the security policies of
its neighbors.
I want people to think about this: Does anyone really believe that
the United States would not have something to say, if, for example,
Mexico or Cuba or any country in Central or Latin America were to form
a military alliance with a U.S. adversary?
Do you think that Members of Congress would stand up and say, ``Well,
you know, Mexico is an independent country. They have the right to do
anything they want''? I doubt that very much.
Countries should be free to make their own foreign policy choices,
but making those choices wisely requires a serious consideration of the
costs and benefits. The fact is that the United States and Ukraine
entering into a deeper security relationship is likely to have some
very serious costs for both countries.
I believe that we must vigorously support the ongoing diplomatic
efforts of the Biden administration to deescalate this crisis. I
believe we must reaffirm Ukrainian independence and sovereignty and
that we must make clear to Putin and his gang of oligarchs that they
will face major consequences should they continue down their current
path.
My colleagues, we must never forget the horrors that a war in the
region would cause, and we must do everything possible to achieve a
realistic and mutually agreeable resolution, one that is acceptable to
Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and our European allies and that
prevents what could be the worst European war since World War II. That
approach is not weakness; it is not appeasement. Bringing people
together to resolve conflicts without war is strength, and it is the
right thing to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the remarks
of my friend and colleague, Senator Sanders of Vermont. I read his
published article in the Guardian newspaper yesterday, and it
paralleled many of the things which he said on the floor today.
We have a very positive starting point between us. I think my record
on voting to go to war may be identical to his, if not very close.
Neither of us wants war--that is the last resort--and it is frightfully
predictable that there will be innocent people killed, even in the best
of times and in the best of military force.
Secondly, I couldn't agree with the Senator more that we should be
promoting all that we can in terms of diplomacy at this moment. The
other night, I had the opportunity to be in a meeting with some
Senators and with the new Chancellor of Germany, Chancellor Scholz. He
was on his way, soon, to Moscow; President Macron of France has been
there; and others are going. I encourage that communication, that
dialogue, as much as possible. I think it is hopeful that these efforts
can lead to a peaceful resolution in the controversy that we are now
facing in Ukraine.
The third point, which I agree with, is that it is certainly in the
interest of the United States, for our values, to make it clear that we
want to protect and defend--at least not in a military fashion but, let
me say, in a general fashion--the notion of sovereignty when it comes
to Ukraine. It is up to the Ukrainian people to chart their course and
make their future.
Where I think we disagree, Senator, is on this whole question of
sphere of influence. I am afraid that that suggestion is the green
light for Vladimir Putin. If you will concede that he is somehow
entitled because of the size of his country to reclaim Soviet Republics
or to move into other theaters, I am sorry, but I have to part company
with you at that point.
I was fortunate enough, 30 years ago or so, to be on the ground in
the Baltics when I saw a dramatic demonstration of courage rarely seen
in the world. This tiny nation of 3 million people broke away from the
Soviet Union and scheduled a free election. I was there at the time the
election took place, and we knew that it was an invitation for Mikhail
Gorbachev to retaliate, and he did. He moved in the Soviet tanks and
started killing innocent people. Before it was all over, more than a
dozen innocent Lithuanians--and several in Latvia--had given their
lives because they wanted to be free again. And who would question why
they would want that?
I happened to have visited that area--my mother was born in
Lithuania; I must put that on the record--in 1978, and I saw what life
was like in the Baltic States under Soviet rule. It was sad. It was
enraging. It was disgusting. What they have done in the Soviet Union is
to forcibly take those countries and others--some through the Warsaw
Pact, some through the direct accession to the Soviet Union--and
control every aspect of their lives with communism.
I went to the University of Vilnius, which I believe dates back to
the 16th century. They took me to their Catholic chapel, which, under
Soviet times, had been converted into what they called a museum in
tribute of atheism. On display in the middle of this former chapel
setting were showcases of boomerangs from Australia in this holy space,
in which they were trying to eradicate religion by demonstrating a new
materiel approach to the entity.
I only say this because, when the time came and they finally, through
their courage, broke from the Soviet Union, Lithuania, Latvia, and
Estonia came to me, knowing that I had an interest in the region, as
did the Polish people, and said: We don't want to be under the thumb of
Russia ever again. We want our freedom. We want to decide our future.
The only way that we can achieve that is if we can ally with the United
States. Can we be considered for NATO membership?
Eventually, through a lot of hard work and determination, that is
what occurred. Poland and the Baltic States, along with others, joined
in the NATO alliance.
It is worth noting here that the NATO alliance is a defensive
alliance. The Suwalki Gap, which links Russia as it now exists in
Kaliningrad with Belarus, is a gap, a land bridge, and on either side
is Poland and Lithuania. It is still contested territory by the
Russians, and they are concerned about it. When the Russians put tens
of thousands of troops and military exercises on the Baltic border in
Belarus, it is understandable they are concerned. They are small
countries that could be easily pushed over. The only thing that saves
them, I believe, is their NATO alliance.
Should Ukraine be part of the NATO alliance? Well, there are two
decisions that must be made, and the first and most important one is by
the Ukrainian people. They have to decide if they believe that it is in
their best interest
[[Page S635]]
for their future. We cannot decide it for them nor should we try to.
Secondly, the NATO alliance has to decide. Under article V, are we
willing to risk the lives of the NATO allies if some terrible event
should occur in Ukraine?
That is what the sovereign nations of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia,
Estonia, and so many other countries did when they decided to ask for
membership in NATO.
I don't understand this theory of the Senator's that, somehow,
Vladimir Putin is entitled to a sphere of influence or control. That,
to me, is unacceptable and inconsistent with the notion of Ukrainian
sovereignty. If they are to decide their future, how can we say that
Vladimir Putin has any voice in that process?
There is a way that he can find a more peaceful situation in the
world, and that is if he will stop being a thug and stop sending his
troops to the borders of countries and stop cutting off gas supplies to
countries that he doesn't like.
I mean, his strong-arm tactics deserve a response from the United
States, and I am afraid simply sending him a harsh letter is not enough
anymore. So we have made it clear that he will pay a price if he
invades, the NATO alliance has. The price will be a string of
sanctions, and we have included some of them in the legislation that
Senator Menendez is working on, which I cosponsored. But that is the
only way to make it clear to him that such a price will be paid.
What he has done is very obvious to me. He has united the NATO
alliance in a way we didn't expect. There were some divisions within
the alliance--some serious and some not serious--but he has brought us
together. And we should be together in standing in defense of the
territory of the NATO allies and in making it clear that if Vladimir
Putin is going to try to extend his reach into Ukraine or into any
other area, he will at least meet with political resistance.
I think, at a minimum, that is where it should be. I hope it doesn't
go any further. I share the Senator's feeling on that. I don't want the
military situation to escalate or to threaten American lives or to
involve us at that level at all, but unless we are firm with him now
and don't concede that he has any sphere of influence in Ukraine, I am
afraid he will take advantage of the situation.
I am open to a question if you have one. I would like to have a
dialogue, if possible, on this through the Chair, of course.
Mr. SANDERS. I appreciate the thoughts of my friend from Illinois.
With much of what he said, I, obviously, agree. My father came from
Poland as a matter of fact.
I think, maybe, the difference of opinion that we have has something
to do with what we don't talk about very often openly but that, I
think, everybody knows exists.
I mentioned--and I think you will not disagree with me--that, over
the last many, many decades, the United States has overthrown
governments throughout Latin America, Central America, and the
Caribbean. There is no denying that we almost went to a nuclear war in
1962 under the Kennedy administration, which felt--and probably
correctly--that Soviet missiles in Cuba, 90 miles away from us, were a
threat to this country and not to be tolerated.
So I would only ask my friend from Illinois to put himself into the
mindset of the Russians in that nobody here--not I, certainly--is ever
talking about reclaiming other countries. You mentioned that, and it is
certainly not anything that I support.
But if the United States has a right to overthrow countries
throughout Latin America to protect our so-called interests and if
there would be an uproar in this Chamber, perhaps from you and me as
well, if Mexico, which is an independent nation, decided to form a
military alliance with China or Russia, and people were to say you
can't do that, should we not put ourselves a little bit in Russia's
position in understanding that if we consider Latin America and Central
America and the Caribbean to be within our sphere of influence and have
the right to intervene, that Russia itself might have some legitimate
concerns about military forces 5 miles from their border? That is the
question I would pose.
Mr. DURBIN. It is a legitimate historic question.
But if you are saying that in the name of the Monroe Doctrine, to
protect ourselves in this hemisphere we have done things which we are
not proud of today, interfering with the sovereignty of nations--the
term ``banana republic'' emerged from that Monroe Doctrine.
And what happened in many of these countries is that they became
vassals of the U.S. economy, and I don't say that with any pride. We
wouldn't want to welcome that to happen in Europe, would we, I mean,
Putin invading some sphere of influence and the sovereignty of other
nations?
Mr. SANDERS. No, we would not. But my point is, the Monroe Doctrine
remains in existence today. It is not just history.
You and I can agree that maybe the United States should not have
overthrown governments over the years. The Monroe Doctrine exists
today. Two years ago, the Secretary of State said it is in existence. I
don't know how many people in this Chamber would tell you that it does
not exist today.
I use that example, to my friend from Illinois--if Mexico were to
enter into an alliance with China, would my friend say: Well, Mexico is
an independent country; they have the right to do anything they want.
Mr. DURBIN. I think that hypothetical is just that. Of course, it is
only a hypothetical. But look at the reality. It wasn't that long ago
when Ecuador elected a new President. At the inauguration of that
President were representatives of Russia, Cuba, and Iran. Now, you
wouldn't put any of those countries today on a list of close American
allies. And yet did we invade Ecuador? Never considered it. Never
considered it.
We live in a different time in the 21st century. I understand the
Monroe Doctrine and the days of gunboat diplomacy and the days of
moving a handful of troops in to take control back on the Dominican
Republic. But to posit the notion that somehow there is going to be a
military alliance on the border of the United States, therefore Putin
is able to compromise the sovereignty of Ukraine, that doesn't follow,
Senator.
Mr. SANDERS. No, it does.
All that I am saying is, 2 years ago, the Secretary of State of the
United States of America said the Monroe Doctrine is alive and well.
Yes, of course, it is hypothetical. I do not believe that Mexico is
going to enter into an alliance with China. But all I ask is to put
what is going on in Russia into a context and to look at American
policy and history as well. This is a complicated issue, and I think it
is important for us to at least look at the concerns that Russia has.
There is no disagreement that if Putin were to commit the horrible,
horrible blunder of invading Ukraine, count me in as somebody who will
go as far as we can to make sure there are real consequences against
the oligarchs and that policy. But I do think if we are going to reach
a settlement in a very complicated issue, it is important for us to
understand a little bit about Russia's concerns.
Mr. DURBIN. I would only disagree in this respect: I believe Ukraine
has been a victim of Russian aggression for a long period of time. The
leader Yanukovych who was deposed in Ukraine when the Maidan
demonstrations took place was clearly a servant and vassal of Moscow.
I believe it was the Russians who invaded Crimea and reclaimed that
territory for their own. It was the Russians who sent in little green
men with no symbols or emblems on their uniforms to invade eastern
Ukraine and continued to kill innocent Ukrainians for 8 years now. So
it is clear to me that Ukraine has been a victim of Russian aggression
for a long period of time.
To suggest the notion that this is somehow within Putin's sphere of
influence is to rationalize Putin's conduct, to forgive his conduct.
And I am not about to do that. I don't think we should.
You don't put 110,000 Russian troops on the border and prepare for
war unless you believe you can pressure that country into acceding to
your demands. Ukraine is not a military power. It won't last very long,
sadly, if the Russians do invade. But at this moment saying spheres of
influence, that the United States has made its own
[[Page S636]]
mistakes in the past in the name of sphere of influence and therefore
we should look the other way at what Putin is doing is just
contradictory.
Mr. SANDERS. The Senator knows I am not for looking the other way.
That is not a fair statement. As I have said many, many times, I am
strongly supportive of major, major, major consequences if Putin
invades Ukraine, and we have got to do everything we can to protect
Ukrainian sovereignty.
All right, I have made my point.
Mr. DURBIN. And I thank you for it.
And I just want to close by saying that there is a--I see the Senator
is waiting to speak. I close by saying that I hope very soon, in the
next couple of weeks, to make a trip to Poland and to the Baltics.
And I will tell you that the people of Polish descent and Ukrainian
descent and Baltic descent in the State that I represent are watching
these events by the day. They lived through the Soviet takeover of
their countries. They understand what happened to their basic freedoms
of speech and political expression and religious belief as a result of
it. They don't want to return to those days.
The United States has said we are committed to their democracy and
their values, and I think we have demonstrated it, and we should
continue to.
I sincerely hope Putin does not take advantage of the situation and
invade Ukraine. I am not calling for a military response, but we should
have a type of response that he will never forget if he does something
that foolhardy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I just feel the need to just make a simple
point, although it should be obvious. But let me just state to be clear
that what we are witnessing in the Russian buildup at the Ukrainian
border has nothing to do with Russian security. There is no Russian
security interests at stake here. There is no threat to Russian
security. Ukrainians could not mount a credible attack on Russia if
they wanted to, and they don't want to. What this is all about entirely
is an authoritarian leader of Russia who wants to reestablish hegemony
over the states of the former Soviet Union. He wants to reestablish the
Russian Empire. It has nothing do with any legitimate concerns that
Russia has.
I strongly feel that if he makes the outrageous mistake of invading
Ukraine, that we will use the many very, very powerful tools at our
disposal to ensure that he regrets that decision.