There are Russian Forces in ukraine, we believe they are responsible for commanding control, arming, financing directing of this conflict. We also believe there are many hundreds of russian dead in ukraine edit does pose a vulnerability for the kremlin politically at home. One quick point. I read in your statement, is its not accurate that as these bodies are returning to russia, russian families of the dead shoulders soldiers are told do not comment on it or they are denied death benefits . Yes. Thank you. Senator mendez had a closing question. Thank you. Madam secretary the budapest memorandum was basically a way to entice the craniums to give up their nuclear weapons, is that it are statement . At the time, the primary intent was for russia to get russia to a short ukraine it would not seek to take advantage of ukraines sovereignty and territorial integrity if it gave out its weapons. There was never an intent to have treaty obligations. You said it was a political agreement, right . So, we also signed that political agreement. You say the concern for ukraine was russiaa not seeking to attack it. If it did what . Give up its nuclear weapons. That is the essence of what was induced from the craniums. Is that not fair to say . We just join with Great Britain and others to sort of give them the comfort of his political agreement. It was to give up their political weapons because otherwise, there is no reason for such an agreement. They also thought sought we obviously have not done that. The entire purpose of it was to guarantee territorial integrity and not to face the threat from any of these powers. If it did what . Give up its nuclear weapons. Is that correct . It is about giving up their nuclear weapons. So, how is this political agreement different from the one we are trying to strike with a run . Isnt the agreement we are trying to strike a political agreement . It is not a treaty obligation. I am not qualified to get into the deal were trying to strike with iran. Im not asking about the agreement. That is for another time. The question is, it seems to me that what we have heard from the administration as it relates to iran is to say that it is not going to be a treaty therefore congress does not need to have a say. It will be basically a political agreement. If that is the case, we need to know the nature of what that means as i see it unfolding here in the budapest memorandum which was a political agreement ultimately to entice the craniums to give up their nuclear weapons, which they did. The craniums to give up their nuclear weapons, which they did. I dont see the difference and i do think it is very much on point. It raises concerns for me ask you where we are going but you tell me you are not capable of answering that question. Let me say with regard to the budapest political commitment, the u. S. Lived up to its commitments under budapest so it is the concern of whether the United States on his political commitments like treaties, i think one can be richard by our behavior one can be reassured. We never had an intention of interfering with the cranes territorial the u kraines territorial. That political agreement with these powers was that we would be supportive of their security and their territorial integrity but that at this point, we have not done anything to a different with its integrity but i think the ukraineians would feel it fell short of that. At the end of the day, it is a political agreement that can be interpreted as those designed it wish to interpret it. That is a counting proposition challenging proposition. We thank you all for your testimony. It has been very unsatisfying for me i would ask the secretary who does need with people constantly around the world, surely on the heels of us never doing the things we said we would do with the free Syrian Rebels and now, the world being very aware of this budapest memorandum and knowing the administration i assume this is another decision from the president s desk i decided undecided this past you have affected has to have affected our credibility with others around the world. I would love to have your sense of that and how damaging our lack of ability to make simple decisions they certainly have complex outcomes but the decisions themselves are relatively simple. Certainly, i was supported by congress. We are all in this together should a decision be made but i would like to get your sense of how badly on the heels again of what we never did in syria, the red line that was never adhered to in this particular issue which is so important to world stability. I would love to get a sense of how this is affecting us with others. Chairman, i would say with regard to my patch, europeans do see these strong bipartisan support for ukraine whether it is on the economic side or the security side. We have done far more than most nations in the transatlantic space to support ukraine. I think our leadership is recognized. We are having a spirited debate on some of these questions. Theres also a transatlantic debate so that question gets asked also. Europeans come at it from both sides, depending upon where they said. We will have the record questions and move into the second panel. I would say that i have very much enjoyed our conversation. You have been very forward with your statements regarding ukraine and the things that need to be done at that has been appreciated. And that has been appreciated by most of us. I would at this point, it is a difficulty coming to work each day with these decisions lingering the way they had and us not taking the steps that many people would end administration as i understand it feel needs to be taken and we continue for some reason not to do those things that we acted as if we might do. I have a number of other questions i will send in writing. I think you all for being here. I realize you are messengers and not the ones setting at your desk with these. We appreciate your candid testimony. Our first witness is john cornyn bluhm. Our second and final witness is former u. S. Ambassador to ukraine john her ptz. As you are getting seated and comfortable, we will begin with ambassador cornblum. Ambassador, i want to thank you for being here. I know you are a resident of nashville and we are always glad to have really bright people from nashville here testifying. We would appreciate it if you would begin. Thank you. You might be even more pleased to learn i have very direct contact with another city in tennessee. This may or will be at a meeting in berlin to talk about the tremendous success we have had an revitalizing the city and the supporting entrepreneurship there. I think you had a little to do with that effort. I am very pleased to be here both because of my tidy tennessee and also to tieto tennessee. I was the assistant secretary during this entire period. I participated in the negotiation of most of them. To you and do Ranking Member mendez, i am pleased to be here. I have a very special point to make. You have heard in their good detail how very good detail about how our government sees things. I think we need to think about the direction of this conflict and the definition. My own view is i have been living in germany for a long time now and i think i can say with a certain amount of accuracy that whatever we are doing in ukraine and with russia, we are losing the Public Affairs battle on this crisis the narrative as we say. The narrative that is most prevalent in the United States but more so in europe is that this is a russia which is reacting angrily because it was cheated, misuse by the west after 1990. I think it is important we focus on this fact because many of the decisions will depend considerably upon whether the russians believe they have the upper hand on this aspect of the crisis and whether we can maintain a strong situation, a strong direction. The fact is after 1990, we dealt with the russian leadership. We saw the collapse of the soviet union as a liberation and not a western attack on russia. They knew exactly what our plans were. We talked to them in detail about it. We did not talk about the details of nato or Eu Enlargement but we told them are go for them and europe was to establish democracy, the free market system, and to allow russia to join the rest of world western world. In many discussions, we worked very hard to make this point not only clear but to establish things to make it real. Now, 25 years later for me, the narrative of this crisis is not whether russia somehow is now a wounded power, but the fact the United States has three administrations establishing it when the Baltic States and now hopefully ukraine also a community of nearly one million persons, which is democratic, secure oriented towards free markets and which ones to be part of the western and a world. I say and atlantic world. You have to remember what the situation was 25 years ago. We had to western part of the continent democratized. The eastern art was mildly a mess. When we first came in to establish relations with the new governments in poland, hungary we found they hardly had basic conditions for modern society. The collaborations within nato and with strong leadership of these countries has in fact succeeded. Many of the reasons we have this conflict with russia now is not because ukraine violated orders or because russia has somehow felt threatened by the west. It is because russian leadership after the beginning of this century has covered its own misdeeds with an increasing authoritarian system. They find the companies on their periphery this is a basic point. It leads to strategy. It suggests that entering into negotiations with the russians over how to conclude this crisis are not very relevant at the moment. There is not any new Security System which we can offer the russians which would not include giving them a spear of influence within these countries we are trying to protect. There is not any military arrangement we can enter with the russians that would not somehow limit our ability to defend these countries that have become democratic. Theres not any new Political Forum that would change the fact the real reason that putin and his cohorts feel threatened is not because anything we have done and not because of a nato sanctioned even although i favor them, but because of things such as the oil price russias lack of investments in the hightech sector their inability to build infrastructure necessary or a modern, industrial economy, etc. It also has to do with the fact that russia has in fact also failed to have the Political Leadership since 2000 which else is population come out of the shock of the end of the cold war and to understand how closely it interests are involved with being part of the west. We have a situation now which is important for all the reasons our government officials mentioned today. They have given a very comprehensive view of what is going on. We are facing an even larger challenge, a challenge that only a challenge to europe but a challenge across the world. That is that russia is caught justly or by accident taking a growing unease around the world at the dislocations caused by globalization, the modern Information Technology world what is happening with the dislocation of industries, and the russians have been able to harness this dissatisfaction in their own country. I can tell you i have a lot of experience. I have been living in berlin. These arguments have affect in western europe and other parts of the world. Add to that one of the senators mentioned, russia is financing with very large efforts in western europe to movements trying to undermine the western system. Russia is also continuing to threaten in one way or the other the weakest points of our system, such as the Baltic States, such as the republic of georgia where i worked quite diligently in recent years. We are facing not just the question, and an important question. My wife grew up in the grainy and community Ukrainian Community in hartford so we are very committed to ukraine but the real challenge of this crisis is that russia, after immense effort on the part of the west and i must say immense efforts has broken out of the general of unity channel of unity and Cooperation Among the countries of europe and is now adapting an antiwestern and antiglobalization approach. To understand the importance of this, there was an article in the Washington Post this week talking about the rhetoric being used inside china about the west and it turns out to be almost word for word the same rhetoric russia is using. The same rhetoric is heard in the middle east come even and yet, which we consider to be an important partner. Putin has been visiting and the indian leadership more or less agreed with what he was saying. Were talking not just about a problem with russia, which is important, we are talking in fact about a wearing away at the foundations of the western community in europe but even more so a wearing away of the ability the west has to influence, control the content of the new globalized world which is coming up. So that is the man consequence i see in this conflict. My final point would be im very appreciative of europes personal efforts to increase our information budgets. I think winning back the narrative and using tools such as the one you are financing are almost as important as considering military support for ukraine, which i support strongly. Thank you. Thank you. Ambassador. Chairman, Ranking Members thank you for this chance to testify. I have been asked to talk about sorry. I have been asked to talk about from one aggression kremlin aggression in ukraine. We need a wider lens. The are people in United States who do not understand the gravity of this crisis. They dont understand because they think the crisis is about ukraine and moscows aggression there. With that now understanding they opposed strong measures necessary to secure vital american interests. The crisis we face is a crisis of kremlin revisionism. Putin does wha to overturn the post wo cold war era. This has been the foundation of peace and prosperity the entire world has enjoyed over the past 25 years. Putin stated he must have a spear of influence in the postsoviet space. He said he has the right to protect ethnic russians and speakers wherever they reside. He has major resources to pursue aggression. He possesses the worlds sixth largest economy, the worlds two largest new where arsenals and the Strongest Military in europe. We all know we has committed multiple acts of aggression in georgia in 2008, primarily last year and since april, he has conducted an increasingly over covert war in ukraines east. In this war, he has escalated intervention multiple times. He has agreed to two ceasefires. He has violated each one of them. His goal in ukraine is what the admiral said earlier today to destabilize the country. But to achieve that, and this is not understood, he cannot settle for a frozen conflict. He needs to be regularly on the offensive with tactical pauses. He has made clear by his statements and actions that if he succeeds in ukraine there will be future targets. They may include nato allies specifically of estonia where russian speakers comprise 20 of the population. Recent, provocations include the kidnapping of an estonian intelligence official. That happened on the david nato summit ended in september. They included the seizure of a loved when he and of a lift when he and lithuanian ship. We have a vital interest in stopping moscows policies before they moved to other countries, especially to the Baltic States. I think it was senator isakson who said the kremlin menace is the most Important National security danger we face today. I endorse that. Isil is a ragtag project terrorists. Not an existential threat to the United States. Moscow is an existential threat to the United States. Iran with its Nuclear Program is not in the same order of threat with the world to Largest Nuclear powers on the move. If western leaders understand this danger, they would devote substantially more resources to dealing with it and they would draw a bright red line in ukraine. Stop putin before he moves the on ukraine. Today, western policy has been slow reactive and all too concerned about giving mr. Putin a the layout of the crisis and not focused on a cost that would make it too expensive to continue. We had a distinguished panel. They were all too reflective of slow, reactive approach. To persuade putin to put aside his revisionist dreams we need to do things that prey on his weaknesses. Strong sentence or part of this. We have to deal with his economy. Strong sanctions are a part of this. We have to prove that by announcing strong additional sanctions for aggressions to come, why cant we tell him now what sanctions we play down if he moves beyond the current ceasefire . He asked a very good question. We need to have sanctions for place now in place now. It will weaken his economy, his Political Support at home, and give him fewer resources for his next aggression. I get the Obama Administration good marks for doing what sanctions because they are trying to pull along somewhat reluctant europe. The other area we need to work on is on security. Mr. Putin has a serious portability. That is why he is a lying to them, that is why the russian are buried in secret and the families are told if you tell the neighbors your son died and thought in ukraine and fought in ukraine, you will not get benefits. If he goes further into the crank on the ukraine, he suffers those casualties. This i was a one of group of eight former officials who produced a report on this we suggest giving ukraine 1 billion a year for each of the next three years, 3 billion of weapons total. The report provides the details. I want to mention just two elements of that. One, we should be providing antiarmor equipment because the russians have used mass tanks in order to commit their aggression in ukraine. We should also be providing counter battery radar for missiles because ukrainians have suffered 70 of their casualties from russian missiles. Were giving them anticounter battery radar for mortars. Theyre needed for missiles. We also need to keep in place the