U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–669PDF 2015

UKRAINE UNDER SIEGE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 4, 2015

Serial No. 114–21

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

The Honorable Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European 

and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State .............................................. 5

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Victoria Nuland: Prepared statement .......................................... 9

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 44

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 45

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Statement 

by Ambassador of Ukraine Olexander Motsyk .................................................. 47

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 49

(1)

UKRAINE UNDER SIEGE 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ambassador Nuland, welcome. 

This hearing will come to order, and our topic today is ‘‘Ukraine 

Under Siege.’’ And Ukraine is under siege by Russia at this moment, and unfortunately, the response to Russia’s aggression by 

the administration has been quite tepid. 

A year ago, Russia invaded and seized Crimea, and some thought 

that Vladimir Putin would stop there. Not so. And last April, Ranking Member Eliot Engel and I led a delegation to Ukraine. We 

traveled to the Russian speaking-east. I think we had eight members on that delegation. We went into Dnepropetrovsk, which is 

bordering Luhansk and Donetsk. 

And I have to share with the members here that the many 

Ukrainians that—and these are Russian speaking Ukrainians in 

the far east that Mr. Engel and I met with, wanted to be Ukrainians. They did not want to be separatists. 

We spoke to the women’s groups there, to the lawyers’ groups, 

civil society, the Jewish group, various ethnic minorities, the governor, the mayor. At Passover, Mr. Engel spoke at the largest Jewish community center in Eastern Europe, the largest synagogue. 

And I can just share with the members here what—I’ll attest to 

the attitude was—one of the thoughts shared with us is it seems 

that Russia has recruited every skinhead and every malcontent in 

the Russian speaking world and are trying to bring them into the 

east. And they said we are holding them in a brig here until hostilities are over, because we can spot them, but they are coming in 

from Russia in order to try to overthrow our Government. 

And so we have seen this situation where Moscow moved from 

annexing Crimea to aggressively supporting militant separatists in 

eastern Ukraine and indeed bringing Russian troops into the country. And Russia may now try to secure a land bridge to Crimea. 

That is the great concern here. That was the worry we heard that 

they would further expand this conflict; that they might try to seize 

the strategic port of Mariupol. 

Now when we talked to the U.N. agencies on the ground, they 

count over 6,000 civilians who have been killed in this conflict. 

2

There are 1.7 million Ukrainians that have now been made refugees. To date, the actions taken by the U.S. and our EU allies, including economic sanctions and aid and diplomatic isolation, have 

not checked Putin. Indeed over the past year he has become bolder, 

even menacing NATO countries as he seeks to divide the alliance. 

The Obama administration and our European allies have put 

hope in diplomatic and ceasefire arrangements, but it is not working. Last week, I met with the First Deputy Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament who said that his country urgently needs anti-tank 

weapons such as the Javelin. He needs radar to pinpoint enemy 

fire in order to do the counter-battery work to suppress that artillery, and he needs communications equipment to overcome Russian 

jamming. 

Ukrainian forces cannot match the advanced equipment that 

Russia is pouring into eastern Ukraine. And by the way, when you 

see tanks come into eastern Ukraine those are not Ukrainians in 

those tanks. Those are Russians. There is no shortage of the will 

to fight, only a shortage of defensive weapons. 

But at the committee’s hearing last week, Secretary Kerry said 

that President Obama has still not made a decision on whether to 

send defensive lethal military aid to Ukraine. Six months after 

President Poroshenko told a joint session of Congress in his words, 

‘‘One cannot win the war with blankets,’’ it was not surprising, but 

still discouraging, to see him have to shop for defensive weapons, 

and unfortunately it has been very, very difficult for Ukraine to 

find any defensive weapons. 

And I was just as discouraged to read in this weekend’s Wall 

Street Journal that U.S. intelligence sharing with Ukraine keeps 

Ukraine in the dark. Satellite images are delayed and obscured 

making them less useful. Frustrated, Ukraine is approaching other 

countries like Canada to share such information. This isn’t U.S. 

leadership. Moscow is also undermining Ukraine’s economy. Today 

Russia is using its natural gas and other energy sources for political coercion and to generate economic chaos in the country. 

Ukraine is facing an economic precipice. It desperately needs 

help. Meanwhile, Russia is winning the battle on the airwaves and 

they are doing it by broadcasting out conspiracy theories and propaganda. Anyone who has monitored what has been up on the air 

is well aware that this propaganda is offensive, is aimed at sowing 

confusion and undermining opposition to its aggression in Ukraine 

and elsewhere. 

But we are barely in the game of countering this with the facts. 

As I told the Secretary last week, I would like to see more administration support for the effort Mr. Engel and I have undertaken to 

reform our international broadcasting. The Broadcasting Board of 

Governors is broken. If we can’t begin to change minds, then the 

struggle over Ukraine today will become a generational struggle for 

the future of Eastern Europe. Ukraine’s fate has security implications for well beyond its borders. 

Now we passed this bill into the Senate last year. We were not 

able to bring it up and get it out of the Senate. We did not have 

the administration’s support for it. But we have vetted this and 

have a great deal of support in this institution for getting back up 

on the air with Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty type broadcasting 

3

that we did years ago to great effect with a message that will get 

the truth effectively into Eastern Europe and into Russia. It is time 

for strong and unwavering support of Ukraine. It is time for this 

right now, and many of these committee members on this committee, I believe, are concerned U.S. policy toward Ukraine may 

soon become, ‘‘too little, too late.’’

And I now turn to the ranking member for opening remarks that 

Mr. Engel of New York might wish to make. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for calling this very timely and important hearing. At the outset I 

want to acknowledge the Ukrainian Days participants who are in 

the audience today. 

And Ambassador Nuland, welcome back. We thank you for testifying today. We thank you for your decades of service. And on a 

personal basis, let me also say that I have had to pleasure of working with you and I am a fan of your hard work, knowledge and tenacity. Thank you for all you do. 

In Ukraine, the events of the past year and the ongoing Russian 

aggression threatens the security and stability of the entire region 

and undermines decades of American commitment to and investment in a Europe that is whole, free and at peace. In fact this is 

a threat to the whole international order. 

So today we face grave questions. What can and should be done, 

and who should contribute to solving this problem? The United 

States is providing substantial assistance to the Government of 

Ukraine including billions of dollars in loan guarantees and nonlethal military aid. We have also imposed significant sanctions on 

Russia. We have sanctioned officials supporting Russia’s aggression 

in Ukraine and targeted key sectors of the Russian economy. And 

we have seen results. Russia’s economy has been taking on water, 

and this has only been magnified by the recent dip in oil prices. 

These policies are good, but only up to a point. They don’t go far 

enough, in my opinion. Russia’s military gains in Ukraine have 

slowed, but Putin continues to grab land along the line of contact 

in violation of the Minsk ceasefire agreement, which mandates that 

Russian supported rebels pull back their forces. 

The government in Kyiv is committed to reform, but leaders 

there struggle every day to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty. And 

while our financial assistance has kept Ukraine’s economy afloat, 

they still confront a bleak economic outlook and the risks of a financial meltdown loom large. 

Now when Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in 1994, the 

United States made a commitment to help protect Ukrainian territorial integrity. That commitment was also made by Russia, U.K., 

China, other countries as well, but now our commitment is being 

tested. Let me also say that I think NATO made a grave mistake 

in 2008 when it refused to admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. 

I know that Germany and France resisted. The United States tried 

to push it. I didn’t work. And I think we are paying the price today. 

I don’t think that Putin would have been as aggressive if Ukraine 

was a part of NATO. 

So last month I met with President Poroshenko. Met with him 

in Europe. His request was simple. Provide Ukraine with key 

weapons and military technology to defend itself. Specifically, 

4

Ukraine needs light anti-tank missiles to protect itself against 

rebels attacking with heavy, Russian supplied armor, not to evict 

the thousands of Russian troops inside Ukrainian borders. Ukraine 

needs longer range counter-battery radars to pinpoint attacking artillery and tanks, not to win a protracted war against Russia’s military. And Ukraine needs better communications technology to deal 

with Russian efforts to jam their signals, not to advance on Moscow. 

I was laughing when at that conference in Munich, Madam Secretary, you and I both attended, to hear the Russian Foreign Minister denying that Russian troops were in Ukraine, saying it was 

just Ukrainian rebels. Lies, lies and more lies. 

I have spoken on the House floor calling on our Government to 

supply defensive weapons to Ukraine. 

So Mr. Chairman, and I know you agree with me, Ukraine is not 

going to win a war against Russia, but it can impose a greater cost 

on Vladimir Putin’s aggression and slow Russia’s advances. And it 

has a chance to remain on its feet when all is said and done if it 

can impose a greater cost on Putin’s aggression and slow Russia’s 

advances. 

Yet for nearly a year, the administration along with the vast majority of our European allies has resisted providing such assistance. 

Now to be sure, there are risks involved but there are also risks 

in allowing Putin to continue his aggression in Ukraine and to 

threaten other peaceful neighbors on Russia’s periphery. And if 

Russia’s aggressive pressure on the West reach the frontiers of our 

NATO allies, the dangers to Europe increase tremendously; the 

dangers to the NATO alliance increase tremendously. 

In December, Congress unanimously passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act. This legislation authorized the provision of lethal 

defensive aid. I was proud to lead House efforts to pass this legislation and happy that President Obama signed it. But I have been 

disappointed that the administration has not used any of the tools 

provided in this law. 

It is time to ask the hard question. Are we willing to stand up 

to Vladimir Putin’s aggression before he kills more people, does 

more economic damage, further destabilizes Europe and threatens 

our NATO allies? Or are the risks just so great that we will simply 

cut our losses? As time passes, our options grow fewer and less effective. That is why I am announcing today my plan to introduce 

new legislation. It will offer Ukraine greater assistance on a variety of fronts. It will dial up the pressure on Vladimir Putin for his 

reckless, destructive and destabilizing policies, and it will send a 

clear message that the United States stands with the people of 

Ukraine against Russian aggression. I look forward to working 

with Chairman Royce and other colleagues as we move ahead with 

this effort. 

And finally, let me just add that our European allies need to confront these same questions of strategy and political will. In my 

view, wealthy countries such as Germany, France and others have 

a lot more skin in the game economically and strategically. They 

should be doing more to assist Ukraine on the economic front as 

they seem even less willing than we are to provide needed military 

assistance. They should double down, dig deep, and ensure Ukraine 

5

does not endure a financial meltdown. This would be a win-win, 

keeping Ukraine solvent and preventing an even greater catastrophe on the EU’s borders. The people of Ukraine are watching, 

the government in Kyiv is watching, and the whole world is watching. We cannot sit idly by and allow Putin to continue his aggression. 

So again Ambassador Nuland, thank you for appearing here 

today and I look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman ROYCE. So this morning we are very pleased to be 

joined by Ambassador Victoria Nuland. And before assuming her 

position as Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of European and 

Eurasian Affairs with the Department of State, Ambassador 

Nuland served as the Department of State’s spokesperson. She also 

served as the United States Permanent Representative to the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization from 2005 to 2008, and she focused heavily on NATO-Russia issues during that period of time. 

And without objection, the witness’s full prepared statement is 

going to be made part of the record. Members will have 5 calendar 

days to submit any statements to the committee, any questions and 

extraneous materials for the record which we will ask the Ambassador to respond to in writing. 

So we would ask, Ambassador, if you would please summarize 

your remarks and then we will go to questions. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE VICTORIA NULAND, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador NULAND. Thank you very much, Chairman Royce, 

Ranking Member Engel, members of this committee, for having me 

back today to speak about the situation in Ukraine and for your 

personal investment in that country’s future. 

Let me also take this opportunity to say that we share this committee’s sadness and outrage over the murder of freedom fighter 

and Russian patriot and friend to many of us, Boris Nemtsov. The 

outpouring of concern from Congress again demonstrates bipartisan U.S. respect for those in Russia and across the region who 

are working for reform, clean government, justice and dignity. 

Today Ukraine is central to our 25-year effort for a ‘‘Europe 

whole, free and at peace.’’ With your permission, I would like to 

focus on three areas in particular today. First, on the hard work 

that Ukraine is doing with U.S. and international support to build 

a more democratic, independent and European country. 

Second, I will address both the opportunity that Russia has to 

implement the February and September Minsk agreements as well 

as the further costs that the United States and our European allies 

will have to impose if Minsk is further violated. And finally, I will 

touch very briefly on three other new threats to European security 

that we are working on—energy vulnerability, corruption and propaganda, as noted by the chairman—that the Ukraine conflict also 

brings into high relief and all we are doing on them. 

First, a quick reminder of why we are here. Fourteen months 

ago, the Kyiv Maidan and towns across Ukraine erupted in peaceful protest by ordinary Ukrainians who were fed up with the sleazy, corrupt regime that was bent on cheating its people of their 

6

democratic choice for a more European future. They braved frigid 

temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets. Ultimately the 

leader of that rotten regime fled the country, and then he was 

voted out by the Parliament including most members of his own 

party. And then Ukraine began to forge a new nation on its own 

terms. 

I want to take a small opportunity here to highlight the very 

hard work that your counterparts in the new Ukrainian Rada have 

undertaken just since they were seated in November. The Rada has 

been a beehive of activity, passing laws to tackle corruption in the 

public and private sector; to reduce government inefficiency; to 

strengthen the banking system; to clean up the energy sector; to 

establish a new police service; to improve the climate for business 

and attract new investment. 

It has also been moving forward on political decentralization to 

give the Ukrainian regions more authority in advance of local elections. These reforms have been politically difficult, but they will 

also stabilize the economy, and we are seeing the hryvnia start to 

stabilize even today. And they will also support the swift disbursement of IMF and other international donor support. I can ask you 

only to imagine what it would have been like if you had been asked 

to pass that much legislation that quickly and that painfully. 

As Ukraine has stood up, the United States and our European 

allies and partners have stood with her. This past year, the United 

States provided almost $355 million in foreign assistance to 

strengthen energy assistance to aid Ukraine’s poorest citizens as 

gas costs rise; to help fight corruption; to strengthen the Ukrainian 

border guard and its military, $118 million in security support 

alone; and to support political reforms, elections and clean government. 

And there is more on the way. As Secretary Kerry testified last week, the President’s budget includes an FY16 request of $513.5 

million, almost six times more than our FY14 request, to build on 

these efforts. Today we are working with Europe, the Ukrainians 

and the IMF to strengthen the country’s economy and support the 

government’s reform plan, particularly in implementing this package of legislation, including a new $1-billion U.S. loan guarantee 

and up to another $1 billion later in 2015, if you and we agree that 

the conditions warrant and if Ukraine is able to meet its reform 

targets. 

This brings me to my second point. Even as Ukraine has begun 

building a peaceful, democratic, independent nation across 94 percent of its territory, Crimea and eastern Ukraine have suffered a 

reign of terror. Today, Crimea remains under illegal annexation 

and human rights abuses are the norm, not the exception, for Crimea’s most vulnerable populations, especially Crimean Tatars, 

Ukrainians who won’t give up their passports, and for LGBT citizens. 

In eastern Ukraine, Russia and its separatist puppets have unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage. Hundreds and hundreds 

of Russian heavy weapons and troops have poured across the border; a commercial airliner was shot down this summer; Donetsk 

airport was obliterated; Ukrainian pilot Nadiya Savchenko languishes in a Moscow jail on day 82 of her hunger strike; and the 

7

city of Debal’tseve, outside the Minsk ceasefire lines, fell to separatists 6 days after the February 12th Minsk Agreement was 

signed. Overall, as you have said Mr. Chairman, 1.7 million 

Ukrainians have been forced out of their homes and over 6,000 

have lost their lives. 

The United States and the EU have worked in lock-step to impose successive rounds of tough sanctions including deep sectoral 

sanctions on Russia and its separatist cronies as the costs for these 

actions, and those sanctions are biting deeply on the Russian economy. Our unity with Europe with regard to Ukraine remains the 

cornerstone of our policy toward this crisis and a fundamental element of our strength in standing up to Russian aggression. 

It is in that spirit that we salute the efforts of German Chancellor Merkel and French President Hollande in Minsk on February 

12th to try again with President Poroshenko and President Putin 

to end the fighting in Ukraine’s east. The Minsk agreements of 

September 5th and September 19th, and the February 12th implementing agreement, offer the promise of peace, disarmament, political normalization and decentralization in eastern Ukraine, and 

along with them the return of Ukraine’s state sovereignty and border control in the east. For some in Ukraine, conditions have already begun to improve since February 12th. In parts of the east, 

the guns have been silenced and the OSCE has begun to gain access. But the picture is very, very mixed. 

And just today we have OSCE reports of new heavy shelling from 

separatist positions around the Donetsk airport and in the towns 

outside Mariupol, particularly the strategically important town of 

Shyrokyne; and we have reports of a new 17th Russian convoy 

going over the border from Russia into Ukraine with no opportunity for Ukraine or the ICRC to inspect that convoy. And we all 

know what they have contained in the past. 

So in the coming days, here is what we and our international 

partners have to see. We need to see a complete ceasefire all along 

the ceasefire line in eastern Ukraine. We have to see full, unfettered access to the whole zone for OCSE monitors. And we have to 

see a full pullback of all heavy weapons as stipulated in the agreement. 

If fully implemented, these steps will bring peace to eastern 

Ukraine for the first time in almost a year, and they will also allow 

for the implementation of the follow-on steps of Minsk, namely, access for Ukraine to its citizens in the east so they can begin a political dialogue; they can begin real work with their own population 

and eventually so we can see that international border closed. 

As we have long said, the United States will start to roll back 

sanctions on Russia when the Minsk agreements are fully implemented, and so will our European partners. But as the President 

has also said, we will judge Russia by its actions not its words. And 

we have already begun, this week, intensive consultations with our 

European partners on further sanctions pressure should Russia 

continue fueling the fire in the east of Ukraine or in other parts 

of the country, fail to implement Minsk, or grab more land as we 

saw in Debal’tseve. 

Finally, just a quick note to remind that traditional military 

force is only one of the threats to European security that we are 

8

working on. There are others including energy dependence from a 

single, unreliable source; the cancer of corruption; and the Kremlin’s pervasive propaganda campaign where truth is no obstacle. 

We are working across all those fronts to harden European resilience to these new threats. 

Just briefly, and there is more in my longer statement. On energy security, project by project, we are working with the EU and 

key countries to change Europe’s energy landscape and to make it 

more secure, resilient and diverse. On corruption, we are working 

with governments, civil society and the business community, particularly across central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans, to 

close the space for dirty money to go in and undercut democratic 

institutions and pervert the business environment. 

And on Russia’s propaganda, we are working with the Broadcast 

Board of Governors to ramp up efforts to counter lies with truth. 

We are also requesting more than $20 million in foreign assistance 

and public diplomacy funds for State Department programs to 

counter Russian propaganda. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of this committee, America’s investment in Ukraine is about far more than 

protecting the choice of a single democratic European country. It is 

about protecting the rules-based system across Europe and globally, and it is about saying no to borders changed by force, to big 

countries intimidating small, and to demanding spheres of influence. It is also as you said, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, about protecting the promise of a Europe whole, free, and at 

peace. I thank each of you and I thank this committee as a whole 

for its bipartisan support and commitment to these policies. Thank 

you very much. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Nuland follows:]

9


93669a-1.eps
10


93669a-2.eps
11


93669a-3.eps
12


93669a-4.eps
13

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador Nuland. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, I do have concerns that 

our intelligence sharing is really in name only when it comes to 

Ukraine. And I know we can’t get into great details here on this, 

but do you believe our intelligence sharing with the Ukrainians is 

robust enough for them to protect themselves? Because we get the 

information from them about the struggle they are having. We 

know the Canadians are trying to assist them in this, but at the 

end of the day they have got to prevail against these Russian 

backed rebel forces and Russian forces that are on their territory 

now with tanks. 

Ambassador NULAND. Mr. Chairman, in this unclassified setting 

let me simply say that our intelligence cooperation with Ukraine as 

well as with the Ukrainian intelligence services and armed forces 

has been improving over time. There are certain constraints as you 

know, but we are continuing to look at what more we can do in a 

manner that protects our own assets and that we are sure will be 

used properly. 

Chairman ROYCE. And let me ask you another question. Because 

I noticed from the head of NATO to the Director of National Intelligence to the new Defense Secretary, it seems like nearly every 

U.S. official supports providing defensive weapons to the Ukrainians. And indeed a letter from many Members of Congress including myself, Mr. Engel, the Speaker, will soon go to the President 

on this subject. Where are we on this decision? Because President 

Poroshenko continues his appeal to us obviously. 

Ambassador NULAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my testimony, as you know we have provided $118 million in security and border assistance to date. This is all in the defensive 

non-lethal area, but some of it is on the high end of defensive including the very important counterfire radar batteries that we were 

able to provide just over the last few months, which Ukrainians report to us have saved lives particularly in the most intensive conflicts around Donetsk airports and Debal’tseve. 

With regard to the question of providing more lethal assistance, 

as my Secretary, Secretary Kerry, testified last week, that question 

is still under discussion and the President has not made a decision. 

Chairman ROYCE. But I want to get back to this issue of Russian 

tanks that are firing on cities and on Ukrainian positions. If they 

cannot get precision anti-tank missiles or weapons to use on the 

ground, there isn’t the capability to stop those tanks. 

And we are not talking about transferring offensive weaponry 

like tanks or selling those to Ukraine. What we are talking about 

are weapons that are purely defensive but are absolutely necessary 

if there is going to be any credible deterrents to what the Russians 

are doing town by town now in the east. The request here isn’t for 

more blankets or meals. I saw the inventory of what we have sent 

them. What they are requesting is quite precise—defensive weaponry that will allow them to hold their positions. 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I said these issues 

are still under review including the types of equipment that you 

note which would respond directly to some of the Russian supply. 

Just to state for the record here, some of what we are seeing we 

have since December seen Russia transfer hundreds of pieces of 

14

military equipment to pro-Russian separatists, tanks, armored vehicles, rocket systems, heavy artillery. 

Chairman ROYCE. And part of the point that I am making is that 

this is not all being transferred to Russian separatists. There is no 

way that separatists are in those tanks. They are not the tankers. 

They are not driving those tanks. Those are Russian soldiers driving those tanks. And I would just make the point to not decide is 

to decide. 

Ambassador NULAND. Understood. 

Chairman ROYCE. And that is the point we have made. 

Lastly, per your observation on the broadcasting I just wanted to 

make the point in terms of the dysfunction. Yesterday, it was reported that the new CEO of the agency Andy Lack, in terms of the 

BBG, is resigning his post after 6 weeks on the job. Now we know, 

we know the problems that staff and others have had over at the 

BBG. We have heard from our former Secretary of State, Secretary 

Clinton, that the agency is defunct. It is defunct. 

Myself and Ranking Member Eliot Engel and other members of 

this committee put a lot of time and effort working with those who 

have a very real interest in reforming this, getting a consensus. 

That legislation is necessary to get this agency back up to the business that it did very well in the 1980s in terms of disseminating 

information into Russia and into Eastern Europe. That legislation 

needs to have support from the administration, and I would just 

leave you with that request, Ambassador. 

Ambassador NULAND. May I just quickly——

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. 

Ambassador NULAND [continuing]. Respond? As you know, as 

Secretary Kerry said, we do join you in supporting reform of the 

BBG. We are working with you on that. We have some differences, 

slight, with your proposed legislation. But I do want to do a shoutout to BBG and its affiliates for the work that they have been 

doing over the last year to counter Russian propaganda and particularly to support broadcasting in Ukraine. They have devoted 

$22.6 million to Russian language programming, a 104-percent increase over Maidan spending. RFE, RL, and VOA have now 

launched a half hour, new Russian language program, current 

time, which helps fill the gap in clean news. It is being pulled down 

by broadcasters all across the periphery of Russia and parts of the 

Russian speaking populations in Ukraine are also receiving it, and 

they are now reaching about 6.6 million viewers. So they have been 

good partners to us, and our budget requests supports doing more 

together. 

Chairman ROYCE. We follow that very closely. 

Ambassador NULAND. Good. 

Chairman ROYCE. And we also are in consultation with those in 

theater about the effectiveness. And trust us when we say reforming the BBG is necessary at this time. We have to be able to take 

some decisive actions to get this back up and running the way it 

worked effectively in the 1980s. 

And I am going to go to Mr. Engel of New York, the ranking 

member of this committee, for his questions. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Madam Secretary, 

let me also put my weight behind what our chairman has said. I 

15

agree with every word he said. I want to read you the first part 

of a report put out by Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty yesterday, and I would like you to comment on it.

‘‘U.S. Commander Says Some 12,000 Russian Soldiers In 

Eastern Ukraine. The U.S. military estimates some 12,000 

Russian soldiers are supporting pro-Moscow separatists in 

eastern Ukraine. U.S. Army Europe Commander Ben Hodges 

said the Russian forces are made up of military advisers, weapons operators and combat troops. Hodges also said some 29,000 

Russian troops are in Crimea, which Moscow annexed from 

Ukraine last year. 

‘‘Hodges said in Berlin on March 3 that helping Ukraine 

with weapons would increase the stakes for Russian President 

Vladimir Putin at home. He added that ‘when mothers start 

seeing sons come home dead, when that price goes up, then 

that domestic support [for Putin] begins to shrink.’ Hodges said 

what Ukraine wants ‘is intelligence, counterfire capability and 

something that can stop a Russian tank.’

‘‘The White House still hasn’t decided whether to send arms 

to Ukraine, and Hodges reiterated Washington wanted a diplomatic solution. Hodges also said U.S. plans to train three 

Ukrainian battalions have been put on hold to see if a ceasefire deal forged last month in the Belarusian capital Minsk will 

be fully implemented. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of 

the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, also voiced support for arming 

Ukraine on March 3. 

‘‘Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 

Dempsey said Washington ‘should absolutely consider’ providing Kyiv with arms through NATO. Dempsey said Putin’s 

ultimate goal was to fracture NATO.’’

And I would add to that to destabilize Ukraine.

‘‘Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama and European 

leaders have agreed that a ‘strong reaction’ would be necessary 

if the Minsk cease-fire agreement is violated.’’

It is almost like when I was a little boy, and Gary Ackerman 

used to tell this story too. That his mother would tell him to do 

something and she would say, I am going to count to three and you 

better have this done when it is three. And she would go one, two, 

and then two and a quarter, two and a half, two and three quarters, and she would give it more and more time. 

That seems to me what we are doing. We are so waiting and hoping that things happen that Putin, really, in my opinion, just looks 

at this as a sign of weakness. And I think the strongest thing that 

we can do now is to provide Kyiv with defensive lethal weapons. 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. 

Obviously this hearing gives us an opportunity for all of you on 

both sides of the aisle to register your views on this important subject. I would say as I said in my testimony that we are watching 

very intensively whether or not the Minsk agreements are implemented. 

I cited some concerns already today following on the vicious taking of Debal’tseve. And, as I said, we have other tools in our arseVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:55 May 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\030415\93669 SHIRL
16

nal including deepening of the sectoral sanctions and we are in consultation with our allies now on how that would go if we see more 

violations. 

Mr. ENGEL. In your written testimony, Ambassador, in your written statement you mentioned, and I am quoting you, ‘‘In the coming days, not weeks or months, we need to see full, unfettered access to the whole conflict zone including all separatist held territory for OSCE monitors.’’ Does this include territory along the border with Russia and will we press for OSCE’s ability to inspect the 

so-called humanitarian convoys regularly entering Ukraine from 

Russia? 

Ambassador NULAND. We have been pressing for that in particular at the two border posts that OSCE has been able to monitor 

on the border. Unfortunately, these convoys seem to find roads ten 

kilometers north or ten kilometers south of where the OSCE monitors are and just wing right by. 

But yes, the Minsk implementation agreement of February 12th 

calls in the first instance for monitoring and verification of 

ceasefire along the internal line as well as these pullbacks of heavy 

weapons. What is required by the agreement is not simply to see 

tanks and artillery pieces on roads moving back but to be able to 

count them; to be able to see them in permanent storage; to be able 

to come back on a regular basis to ensure that they haven’t moved 

or been redeployed elsewhere; but also eventually to be able to 

have access to the entire special status area. And that will certainly be necessary if the political pieces of Minsk are to be implemented, new elections, et cetera, so that we can be sure that they 

are free and fair and that ODIHR and other OSCE elements can 

get in. 

Mr. ENGEL. And let me just ask you one final question. I am 

really concerned that the Minsk implementation agreement does 

not provide Ukraine control over its own border with Russia until 

the end of this year following Constitution reform in Ukraine that 

is acceptable to Russia. Can you allay my fears and help me to 

make sense of this? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, you are correct, Mr. Ranking Member, that the way the implementation agreement was sequenced on 

February 12th restoring Ukrainian sovereignty on the eastern border is the last item and it doesn’t happen until the end of 2015. 

But, as I said in my statement, we are also firm with our allies and 

partners that that means we will not be rolling back sanctions on 

Russia until Minsk is fully implemented. So that is part of what 

we have. 

Now the Ukrainians, as you know, are in the process of working 

intensively to reform the Constitution. The Rada has taken new 

steps to accelerate that work including this bill that I mentioned 

to provide greater powers to the regions, even in advance, to all the 

regions of Ukraine even in advance of constitutional reform. So we 

are cautiously optimistic that with European and U.S. help, there 

will be constitutional reform in Ukraine in 2015 that will meet the 

standards and we will see whether the separatists are willing to 

work with the government and whether we actually have elections 

and new eastern Ukrainian authorities who can work on decentralization there. 

17

Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you. I think you hear my frustrations, 

the chairman’s frustrations, but thank you personally for your hard 

work and your good work. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Engel. 

I will recognize myself. 

And Madam Ambassador, many members of our committee will 

continue to hammer the Obama administration on this damaging 

and unnecessary and senseless delay in providing the lethal aid 

that Ukraine so desperately needs, so you will continue to hear this 

line of questioning. Because despite this fragile ceasefire, Ukraine 

continues to suffer casualties at the hands of separatists backed by 

Moscow, and the Ukraine Government fears that Putin’s thugs are 

simply using this opportunity, this ceasefire, to regroup their forces 

in preparation of yet another offensive. 

Ukraine is in such tragic need of lethal aid from the U.S., and 

as you have heard both the head of our nation’s intelligence community and the head of our Defense Department agree. Yet just 

last week Secretary Kerry testified before our committee as you 

have heard from the chairman and the ranking member that no decision on lethal aid has been made yet. And so we ask and continue 

to ask what is the hold up? Our allies need our assistance now. 

Enough with the excuses. 

So in what part of the interagency process is the decision on lethal aid for Ukraine currently stalled? Does the State Department 

believe that the United States should send lethal aid to Ukraine, 

yes or no? And you said that the President has not made a decision 

yet, but you didn’t say what you believe and what the State Department believes, and I would like to hear that. 

Also the Magnitsky Act and that list, the tragic murder a few 

days ago of the Russian opposition leader came just days as we 

know as he was about to publish evidence of the Russian military 

in Ukraine. Has his murder been sanctioned as human rights violators under the Magnitsky Act? And can you give us an update on 

the progress or lack thereof of adding names on that Magnitsky Act 

so we can sanction those violators? 

And also Secretary Kerry has said that the Russian Foreign Minister lied to his face about Russian involvement in Ukraine. What 

is the extent of Russian involvement? Are Russian soldiers in 

Ukraine? Are we prepared to say that participating in the conflict? 

And on the 123 Agreement, and I will ask you to give me written 

responses to these because there is a series of questions. I have 

been advocating for the administration to withdraw from the U.S.-

Russia nuclear cooperation agreement, the 123 Agreement, to prevent the potential future use of U.S. nuclear technology and assistance against our own interests. And given Putin’s continued aggression, will the administration suspend the Russia 123 Agreement? 

And lastly, I have been critical of how the administration plans 

on using funds to promote democracy and human rights in Russia 

especially after 2012 when Putin kicked out USAID from Russia. 

Please update the committee on what the administration plans to 

do with that money that has been left over from the U.S.-Russia 

investment fund. 

18

Ambassador NULAND. That is a lot, Congresswoman. Let me go 

through them quickly. And thank you for letting me take the 123 

question in writing because I want to make sure our agencies get 

it right for you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Ambassador NULAND. With regard to the process, the President 

did ask covenant agencies for recommendations and advice. Those 

recommendations and advice have gone forward to him. I think you 

will forgive me if I take the same position my Secretary took when 

he was here that we will provide that advice confidentially and I 

will decline to speak to it in an open hearing. 

With regard to the brutal murder of Boris Nemtsov, I think you 

know that before this we had met our annual statutory requirement to provide more names under the Magnitsky legislation, but 

that was of course before this event. So as we look at our list at 

the end of this year we will see what we can learn about who the 

perpetrators are. We have made absolutely clear publicly and privately to the Russian Federation that the international community 

will expect an investigation that meets international standards, 

and that finds not only the shooter but the orderer of the murderer. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And not headed by Putin, heading the investigation. I know my time is expiring, but if we were to add, aggressively add more names to that list of human rights violators I 

think we would see a change. And Russia knows that we are not 

serious about implementing that legislation. But I would love to get 

the answers to my questions in writing. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. 

And we will go to Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Ambassador, one thing I noticed about your opening statement was your lavish praise for the Ukrainian Parliament 

passing so much substantive legislation and you compared it to 

Congress. 

Ambassador NULAND. I didn’t compare it——

Mr. SHERMAN. I would just note for the record, and maybe it 

wasn’t a comparison but came very close, that every day someone 

in the administration urges me to work hard to block legislation 

they don’t like. And 99 percent of the bills that the administration 

does not want on the President’s desk are not there due to the hard 

work of your allies here in Congress. So if you want lots of legislation passed, be sure that that is a consistent view of the administration. 

Now many of my colleagues at the beginning talked about how 

we need a strong policy and who would come here and advocate a 

weak policy, but we do need to put this Ukrainian situation in context. America has limited power and we seem to face unlimited 

challenges—Iran, ISIS, China in the South China Sea, the Afghanistan, some difficulties in Pakistan. So we have to go with strength 

and nuance, although frankly I think in this case we need a little 

bit more strength, a little bit less nuance. 

There is talk about capturing Mariupol and then going and building a land bridge to Crimea. My concern is they will want to build 

a land bridge to Trans-Dniester or Moldova and take all of 

Ukraine’s coastal territory and access to the Black Sea. 

19

A lot of discussion of whether we should provide lethal weapons, 

albeit defensive lethal weapons to Ukraine, and such lethal aid 

would have an effect on the battlefield but also a political effect. 

These aren’t weapons they are getting their hands on from Paraguay. These are weapons from the world’s superpower. We can give 

Ukraine money or we could give them weapons. If they had money 

they could buy weapons. If the Ukrainian Government had sufficient money is there anything, looking at the defensive weapons 

that are being discussed, that they could not buy from some 

source? So the real question here is can we have the battlefield effects suggested by my colleagues by providing money? 

Ambassador NULAND. First of all, Congressman, I certainly 

didn’t mean any invidious comparison. I was simply giving props 

to these legislators who have taken some tough decisions. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I understand. I understand. 

Ambassador NULAND. Please. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. 

Ambassador NULAND. With regard to your concern about a race 

all along the southern rim of Ukrainian territory, not only a land 

bridge to Crimea but onward to Moldova, we worry about that, too. 

That is why we are paying such close attention today to these villages between the ceasefire line and the——

Mr. SHERMAN. If you could focus on the question I asked. 

Ambassador NULAND. Exactly. With regard to what one can buy 

on the international market, a number of the things that the 

Ukrainians have requested are not readily available unless the 

U.S. were to license onward export. And we have a number of countries including our allies——

Mr. SHERMAN. We are just talking anti-tank weapons. I mean I 

see those in the World War II movies. 

Ambassador NULAND. They have also been out shopping on the 

world market and have had a lot of difficulty getting countries to 

provide in the absence of the U.S. providing. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And yet our enemies turn money into weapons 

with great ease. You mentioned the importance of—if we can have 

order in the committee. You mentioned the regions and devolving 

power to the regions. That is controversial in Kyiv, and yet if power 

is devolved to the regions that undercuts Russian propaganda. It 

creates more support for a Ukrainian state. 

Is it true that under the present Constitution the governor of 

each state is appointed by Kyiv? I know we have some gentlemen 

here from Texas who are wondering whether President Obama will 

appoint their governor. I don’t think that would be a way to be popular in Texas. Have the Ukrainians changed their system so each 

region can elect its own governor? 

Ambassador NULAND. Congressman, that is one of the issues 

that is going to be debated as they move through constitutional reform. As you know, their system is very similar to the system in 

Russia and other post-Soviet states where the executive is appointed and the Parliament is elected locally. But on this issue of 

decentralization—just to say that it is actually broadly popular 

across Ukraine, not just in the east. One of the ways that the 

oligarchs in power in Kyiv manage things—and that Moscow was 

able to help them manage things—was because everything was 

20

centralized. So there is broad support for decentralizing budget authority, tax authority, local policing, all these kinds of things, and 

I think you will see that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And hopefully electing your own governor would 

be part of that. Because our friends in Kyiv need to help themselves, not just ask for our help, and they could help themselves 

a lot by countering that Russian propaganda. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey, 

chairman of the Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and 

International Organizations Subcommittee. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And welcome Madam Ambassador. 

Just a couple of points. First of all, I do believe delay is denial and 

I think we have a de facto defensive weapons arms embargo on 

Ukraine. And it is reminiscent to me at least and perhaps many 

others to the Balkans War when we in a totally misguided fashion 

ensured that Bosnia and the Croats, the Croatians, did not have 

the ability to defend themselves against Milosevic’s aggression, and 

now we see a reprise of that happening to our good friend and ally 

Ukraine. 

When you get the Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, James Clapper, and as one of my colleagues already mentioned and I have 

read his speech and it is an excellent speech that was given by our 

top military commander, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, he has 

made a number of important points, I think, in his speech, perhaps 

chief of which is that while Ukraine’s defensive capability might 

not necessarily turn the tide overnight or soon, when it comes to 

the military situation it will make the diplomatic solution more 

probable. 

And that is exactly what happened as we all know when the 

Croats broke the arms embargo. It wasn’t NATO bombing that initially turned it all, it was the Croatians were able to break the 

arms embargo and put Milosevic to flight. And I think the Ukrainians are waiting for the kind of ability to defend themselves. 

The President’s advisors are all saying do it Mr. President, and 

he has refrained from doing it. It is baffling. When you get two 

world leaders between September and yesterday publicly admonishing President Obama in joint sessions of Congress, it is time to 

wake up, I believe, respectfully, and take their views into much 

greater account. 

As my colleagues have said, and I believe it as well, delay is denial. People are dying. Over 6,000 are dead. Many of those are children and women. And I do think it may even be speak another 

issue and that is the hollowness of our military increasingly. We 

are not there yet, thank God, but we are on a glide slope to being 

weakened because of defense spending. 

But as General Hodges pointed out, Germany, and we know Angela Merkel has admonished not to go with the military defensive 

capability, only 42 of Germany’s 106 Typhoon fighters are available 

because of maintenance, 38 of its 89 Tornado bombers. Special 

forces had to pull out of the joint exercise because there was no 

working helicopter. A hollow force is an engraved invitation to 

Vladimir Putin to continue his aggressive ways, so I think the alliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:55 May 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\030415\93669 SHIRL
21

ance itself and the United States needs to step up and help the 

Ukrainians. 

I was in Europe 2 weeks ago for an OSCE winter meeting, and 

the Ukrainians, and while they don’t want to say this publicly, just 

like Netanyahu was effusive in the opening speech, part of his 

speech with praise for Obama, they don’t want to say it publicly, 

they need us. So they have to tread lightly and walk on eggshells. 

But they told me off the record how profoundly disappointed they 

are in President Obama especially in light of people around him 

saying please Mr. President, this is a time for American leadership. 

So when will that decision be made? The pipeline took 6 years and 

then finally we found out where the President really stood when 

he vetoed the bill for the Keystone Pipeline. What, is it next week? 

Is it tomorrow? There is statements by Poroshenko today admonishing the, and it is right from our Embassy, admonishing the European Union not to be premature, his word, in being optimistic 

about where Minsk II is taking us. 

And again there are also parallels that I thank God for the 452 

OSCE monitors that are on the ground doing wonderful work, but 

it is reminiscent again of what happened in Croatia and Bosnia 

when the European monitors were there. And I remember meeting 

with them with their white suits on and scorepads. How many people are being killed? How many are being raped? It was horrible 

stuff and they were brave as could be, no weapons, while the OSCE 

monitors are in that same boat. They need defensive weapons and 

they need them now. 

Yield. The answer tomorrow maybe are we going to find out from 

the President? Delay is denial. 

Ambassador NULAND. Thank you, Congressman. I think as you 

heard in my opening statement, we are watching the implementation of Minsk. We do have concerns now about new firing on the 

ground in the last couple of days. I do think that the environment 

and whether this is implemented will affect the calculus both on 

the sanction side and on the security support side. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Okay, but hopefully soon. I mean the 

Ukrainians are suffering so much. Nadia Savchenko the pilot, remember, of the Parliament? She is in her 82nd day of a hunger 

strike. What do we know about her and what are we doing to try 

to affect her release? 

Ambassador NULAND. We have grave concerns about her condition. We believe she was illegally abducted across the border and 

that she is being illegally held; that if Russia wanted to give a humanitarian gesture there would be nothing more impactful that 

they could do quickly than to release her. Today we have concerns 

about her health. She was seen by a European doctor last week or 

2 weeks ago. But as you know, when you are taking in no calories, 

every day matters. So in every meeting we have at every level, notably including Secretary Kerry’s meeting with Foreign Minister 

Lavrov over the weekend, we raise her condition and ask that she 

be released immediately. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go now to Mr. Gregory Meeks 

of New York, ranking member of the subcommittee on Europe. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me just say for 

me this is very complicated. I don’t think that there is one solution 

22

to it, whether it is giving weapons if that is going to be the be-all 

and end-all that is going to resolve this problem or not. I am not 

even sure where I am at on that. 

Let me just ask this question. I just want to ask one. I know we 

have been a lot on weapons. Because I think by now everybody is 

clear I am a multilateralist. I think that the world is different. We 

can’t just do things on our own. I think it is leadership when you 

are bringing countries together and you have it in the work and 

stick together. I think that is leadership. But it is difficult. It is 

easy to do things by yourself. It is harder to do things in conjunction with others, and that is real leadership in my estimation. 

Now where is, and I am not sure even on the weapons because 

like I say I am not sure where I am at because you don’t like to 

see this, but have we had dialogue and where is our EU partners 

on giving defensive weapons to Ukraine? And in my mind I am still 

unclear what is defensive weapons, what are offensive weapons, 

whether or not those weapons, if you are in battle everyone says 

that Ukraine cannot beat Russia. Can Russia take those weapons 

away from the Ukrainians? But where is our EU partners on the 

issue of arming Ukraine? 

Ambassador NULAND. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you 

for your support for Europe as the new ranking member of a subcommittee. 

I am multilateralist, too. I would say with regard to managing 

our response on Ukraine, we spend almost as much time working 

with NATO and EU partners as we do working with Ukrainians, 

because that unity is so important and it makes it impossible for 

the Kremlin to divide us. 

All 28 allies have provided, NATO allies have provided, some 

form of security assistance to Ukraine. That was one of the commitments we made to each other at Wales. It can take the form of 

training. It can take the form of support for the medical needs of 

the military, those kinds of things. 

The U.K. and Poland have just announced, as you probably saw 

in the press, that they will start training Ukrainians along the 

lines of the notifications that we have sent up to you all. Where 

the divide happens and where the debate is happening, and there 

are allies and partners on both sides of this debate as there are 

folks in Washington, is on the question of the lethality of the weapons. So non-lethal defensive weapons everybody has been supportive of what we have done, what this committee has funded. 

On the question of lethal, I think the debate is very similar with 

different allies on different sides. The President obviously has discussed this with all of his partners, most notably with Chancellor 

Merkel when she was here. The Vice President had a chance to 

talk to a lot of Europeans at Munich as did Secretary Kerry. So 

that conversation continues. 

Mr. MEEKS. Let me ask this question a little bit different. Because what my concern really is even before we can deal with what 

is taking place militarily, a few folks that I have spoken with they 

are really concerned with the dire straits of the economics, of the 

economy of the Ukraine. In fact some has said to me that the economy and corruption could cause the Ukrainian, this Ukraine, the 

government to fold even before we get further down the road. And 

23

that even the money that we give some questioning whether or not 

it is going to where it is supposed to go or is it getting into corrupt 

hands. 

So my question is what is new in this government and its legislation that changes our calculation on this front and gives encouragement? Because in many I am told, politically, all politics are local, 

that many of the individuals in Ukraine are more concerned about 

the economy and corruption right now as their first concern before 

we even move off from that. So where are we there? 

Ambassador NULAND. Thank you, Congressman, for raising this 

point. This is the other major line of vulnerability for Ukraine and 

where we have to shore her up. And again we thank you for your 

support and generosity on this committee for, first, last year’s $1 

billion loan guarantee, then again our request for the second $1 billion loan guarantee which is the U.S. contribution to the multilateral effort that the IMF is leading. 

As you have seen in the last few weeks, as the Ukrainians have 

started the very hard legislative work and implementation work to 

attack the problems in the economy, it has been extremely intense. 

I gave a long list in my opening statement. You will see a fuller 

list in my long statement of all the legislation that they have 

passed to establish an anti-corruption bureau; to clean up public 

procurement; to open the banking system to scrutiny; to get 

oligarchs and others to start paying their taxes; to break up public 

and private energy monopolies, these kinds of things. But that is 

going to require implementation. And most of the economic support 

funds we have asked you all for Ukraine, for ’15 and again for ’16, 

go to the U.S. mentors and advisers, our ability to work with them 

on implementing legislation, help them be public in these things. 

But it is a long, long road but they are seizing it by the horns. 

That is why we have structured our support to ask you for the second billion-dollar loan guarantee now, but not to come back to you 

for the third one until the fall when we see how they implement 

because our assistance, like everyone’s assistance, is tied to performance. The Ukrainian people expect no less. That is what they 

stood in the snow for and that is what we expect as well. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We go now to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California, chairman of 

the Europe, European and Emerging Threats subcommittee. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 

agree with Mr. Meeks that this is a very complicated issue and perhaps a lot more complicated than the black and white alternatives 

that we have been hearing about today. 

At one point we have heard that the Ukraine desperately needs 

economic help, and I would hope that our goal is to do what is right 

by Ukraine and bring peace to Ukraine and not our goal being to 

basically defeat and humiliate Russia for actions that it has taken. 

Because if that is our goal, the people of Ukraine will continue to 

suffer and suffer and suffer. 

Back to the Ukraine desperately needs economic help, this whole 

incident in history started when the government of what you call 

the rotten regime that preceded the current Government of 

Ukraine went to our European allies to ask for help that it desperately needed for its economy. And the deal that was offered by 

24

our European allies was not sufficient, and in fact was much less 

than what the Russians offered them instead. 

And when that deal was taken by the rotten regime that you 

have mentioned, all of a sudden that is when it became so rotten 

that we no longer, or the people could no longer put up with it. The 

pivotal moment was when it accepted the deal that was offered by 

Russia to help them in their desperate economic situation which 

our European allies were not willing to do. That ignited this situation. That is what turned policies type of situations, and perhaps 

the overturn of a rotten government through an electoral process 

into instead the overturn of the rotten regime by violent demonstrations and non-democratic means of overthrowing that regime. Two years later they could have kicked that Yanukovych out 

with a free election. They didn’t wait. 

Let me ask you about—okay, so let us hope that what we are 

doing now is aimed at trying to end the conflict that started in that 

more complicated way than black and white. 

The people are advocating that we send weapons to Ukraine, the 

defensive weapons. Would any of these weapons be under, do we 

see any of these weapons becoming part of the arsenal of that part 

of the Ukrainian army that is financed, which I believe a third of 

the Ukrainian army now that is in conflict is financed by an oligarch, a private citizen who happens to be a multi-billionaire. 

Ambassador NULAND. First of all, Congressman, thank you. I will 

respectfully take issue with some of the facts that you presented 

here because——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Please go right ahead. I am happy to do that. 

That is fine. 

Ambassador NULAND. First of all, in the fall of 2013 the reason 

that folks went to the Maidan was not because money was taken 

from Russia. It was because former President Yanukovych turned 

his back on the EU Association Agreement that he had for 6 

months been promising his people. It got worse after——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Have you read that agreement? 

Ambassador NULAND. I have. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And do you believe that that agreement—I 

have as well. Do you believe that that agreement was superior to 

what the Russians were offering? 

Ambassador NULAND. Let me speak to that. So in the same period in the fall of 2013 when Yanukovych was talking to the EU 

about association he was also working with the IMF on an IMF 

package similar to what was offered later and what we have now. 

I was working as the U.S. Government’s representative to him to 

try to get him to meet IMF conditions. I had more than 30 hours 

of meetings with him and declined to meet with——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Excuse me, I only have 25 seconds where 

they cut me off. 

Ambassador NULAND. Okay. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I want to make this point. 

Ambassador NULAND. Let me speak to the weapons issue. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is not your time. They are going to cut me 

off in 15 seconds. I hope that what we are doing is trying to bring 

peace to the Ukrainians and not to humiliate the Russians. And 

there is a lot of people—and I understand, I was a big Cold Warrior 

25

as well. Our goal should be to try to have peace in that part of the 

world, not to try to humiliate Russia again and again and again. 

There is too many people being killed out there. 

And I would hope that with decentralization which seems to be 

accepted by both sides that that area of eastern Ukraine can remain part of Ukraine even though that now we have this separatist 

violence going on that with promise of decentralization and respect 

for everybody’s rights and an end to the violence that we can end 

this situation. 

And that should be our goal and I would hope that we don’t get 

caught up in trying to reestablish a Cold War with Russia because 

we have so many people who have grudges. And by the way I understand that. Russians during the Cold War murdered how many 

Ukrainians, but our goal shouldn’t be right now to make them pay 

for that what they did during Stalin’s era, but bring peace to that 

region. And I would hope that we could work together on that. I 

am sorry but they are going to cut me off right now. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay, we are going to go to Mr. Gerry 

Connolly of Virginia. 

Ambassador NULAND. Mr. Chairman, can I just quickly——

Chairman ROYCE. Yes, Ambassador. 

Ambassador NULAND. I think it is important for the record to say 

that the only thing that the United States and our European partners want from Russia with regard to Ukraine is to leave Ukrainian territory. Leave Ukrainian territory with their military, with 

their advisers, to allow the border to close, to allow sovereignty to 

be restored. And as we said, these sanctions will be eased when 

Minsk is fully implemented. There is no effort. 

What my concern is it is the policies of the Kremlin that are 

hurting the Russian people now. Hurting them economically. Having their sons come home in body bags. That is what I worry about. 

I have spent 25 years of my life trying to integrate Russia into Europe and into the international system, and I worry about the fate 

of Russia’s citizens as much as Ukraine’s. 

Chairman ROYCE. We are going to go to Mr. Gerald Connolly of 

Virginia. Fairfax, Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would 

just say I have heard my friend from California. I have got to say 

the logic of the Ukrainian Government made bad decisions and 

therefore Russia had to respond is a pretty chilling message to others in Europe, including the Baltics and former Soviet satellite 

states. Sovereign nations get to make decisions, even decisions that 

may be unpopular in the Kremlin. And they can do so without the 

fear of being invaded and their territory annexed illegally, and I 

would hope that all of us would keep that in mind. 

Madam Secretary, Minsk, the Minsk agreement. Does the Minsk 

agreement include interalia the de-occupation and de-annexation, 

illegal annexation of the Crimea? 

Ambassador NULAND. Congressman, it does not. It only addresses eastern Ukraine. So the problem in Crimea will continue. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, but I have got a problem then with you and 

with our policy. You say in your statement the United States will 

start rolling back sanctions on Russia only when the Minsk agreeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:55 May 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\030415\93669 SHIRL
26

ments are fully implemented. Well, that means you have conceded 

Crimea. Is that U.S. policy? 

Ambassador NULAND. It is not, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Why would you roll back—I swear I am not playing with the audience. This is a passion with me. It started with 

Crimea. Why would you make a statement like that? You are saying as long as you clean it up in the eastern part of the Ukraine 

we will roll back sanctions. That is what you say on Page 3 of your 

testimony. 

Ambassador NULAND. I do indeed. Let me explain if I may. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. 

Ambassador NULAND. Thank you for the opportunity to do so. 

Over the course of 2014 we with the Europeans put in place four 

or five rounds of sanctions. The first two were a direct response to 

Crimea, and then in December we added sanctions on Crimea 

which effectively make it impossible for any U.S. firms to invest 

there. Those sanctions will not be rolled back unless there is a return of Crimea to Ukraine. So the sanctions that we are talking 

about rolling back are other sanctions that were applied in response to actions in eastern Ukraine, but Crimea sanctions will 

stay in place. And the point here is to demonstrate that if you bite 

off a piece of another person’s country it dries up in your mouth. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, but you have got kind of two categories of 

sanctions. Crimea sanctions and non-Crimea sanctions. 

Ambassador NULAND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, if you are Vladimir Putin, how seriously do 

you take that? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, you take it quite seriously because 

there is no U.S. or European investment going into Crimea now 

and it is incredibly expensive for them to maintain this occupation 

that they have now started. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But, well, I would respectfully suggest Madam 

Ambassador that frankly we need to reexamine that policy, because 

it clearly isn’t efficacious. It certainly isn’t deterring behavior by 

Putin right now in the eastern part of the Ukraine. People are 

dying. You yourself in your opening statement documented illegal 

movement of military equipment across the border with impunity. 

And it seems to me that you have unwittingly sent a message to 

the Kremlin, wink blink, get out of the eastern Ukraine and maybe 

everything can return to some sense of normalcy in the bilateral 

or multilateral relationship. That may not be your intended message, but when you are a KGB thug who happens to be the head 

of another state, the aggressor in this case, that is the message he 

is hearing. The evidence on the ground would suggest that is the 

case. 

Ambassador NULAND. First of all, if I may, I think it might be 

helpful if we sent our sanctions team up to show you the breakdown between what we hold for Crimea and what we hold for eastern Ukraine. I think that might be——

Mr. CONNOLLY. You mean the State Department’s sanction team? 

Is that what you said? 

Ambassador NULAND. State and Treasury, yes. If that is helpful. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. Well, that would be a novel thought having the State Department brief a Member of Congress. 

27

Ambassador NULAND. We will make that happen as soon as they 

come back from Europe. But I want to make clear as I also said 

in my statement, we have begun consultations already this week 

with our European partners on deepening sanctions if we do not 

see Minsk implemented. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. How many violations have there been on Minsk 

II? We have a count that says there have been over 300 violations 

of the current agreement. Would that be roughly in the ballpark 

from your point of view? 

Ambassador NULAND. I don’t have the OSCE figures in front of 

me, but they have logged more than 100 in terms of——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Isn’t part of the problem of Minsk that there isn’t 

really much teeth? With the best of intentions Merkel and 

Hollande are trying to negotiate with nothing backing it up. 

Wouldn’t it be useful to have the United States and its NATO partners at least threatening to provide defensive equipment and defensive weapons and training for the Ukrainian military so that 

that is a piece of what is behind the Minsk agreements? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, as you know it was in the week leading up to Minsk that the conversation between us and our European allies about this question went public. So it is very much in 

the ether here. But I think equally importantly is to be in line with 

Europe on the additional sanctions that will be imposed if Minsk 

is further violated or if there is a further land grab, and that is 

what we are working on now. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is up but I want to echo, I think, your 

opening comments. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Connolly, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. One wonders when the United States Government at the State Department decides a policy is not working and 

rethinks it. Because people are dying because of the lack of efficacy 

of this policy despite the best of intentions, and I hope we come to 

some point where we rethink our policy with respect to the 

Ukraine. And Crimea. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. 

We go now to Mr. Matt Salmon of Arizona, chairman of the subcommittee on Asia. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for 

being here today, Ambassador. To date, the sanctions that have 

been imposed on Russia have had really little impact on Putin’s decision making. The administration has stated that additional sanctions are being considered, but without the commitment of some 

our allies, some of our European allies to enforce those sanctions 

with us or impose sanctions as a body, the likelihood of those sanctions having much effect are not real great. 

Are there other sanctions that the administration is considering 

and do you believe that it will impact Putin’s decision making in 

the near term? You stated in your opening comments that what 

has really impacted him is the price of oil and that it has really 

brought their economy to their knees. 

So I am wondering if maybe it is time also for us to consider our 

policy in selling natural gas to our European allies. The process 

just hasn’t moved very quickly. And one of the reasons I know that 

28

Germany has been so reticent to allow us to sell arms or provide 

arms to the Ukrainians is because of their heavy reliance on natural gas from Russia. Same thing has been true on support of sanctions. Isn’t it time for us to just really pull out the stops and start 

selling LNG to our allies in Europe? 

Ambassador NULAND. Thank you, Congressman. Well, as you 

know most U.S. LNG now goes to Asia because the price is higher. 

Under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, if we 

have a deal between the 28 Europeans and the United States, then 

they would go to the top of the queue in terms of acquiring LNG. 

But it is a fair point whether we could or should do more. 

With regard to sanctions, we have not yet changed his decision 

making decisively but we are having a profound effect on the Russian economy and we do think it is the trifecta of sanctions, low 

oil prices and 15-plus years of economic mismanagement in Russia. 

I can go through some of the statistics but I think you know them. 

Foreign currency reserves down $130 billion just over the last year. 

Credit at junk, inflation running 15 percent, and 40 percent in food 

prices. 

So he is—Kremlin policy is under stress here which is why it is 

important to keep these sanctions in place and to consider deepening them. We are, as I said, working now with the Europeans on 

what more we would do sectorally if we do not see Minsk implemented, if we do not have an end to the ceasefire violations, if we 

do not have a heavy weapons pullback, on and on. But also even 

deeper sanctions if we have a further land grab, and we are, as I 

said, watching these at-risk villages on the road to Mariupol, et 

cetera, now. And our sanctions team is in Europe this week. 

Mr. SALMON. The chairman mentioned in his opening statement 

that we made a pretty ironclad promise to Ukraine when they 

agreed to get rid of their nuclear arms, and to date the U.S and 

NATO response to the Russian aggressions has been pretty muted 

at best. In fact, out of the $118 million of non-lethal assistance the 

U.S. pledged last year, my understanding is only half of it or about 

half of it was delivered by year-end. 

Don’t you believe that there will be long-term consequences for 

the U.S. and NATO if we fail to live up to our commitments to defend our allies? And when are we going to make that decision as 

far as whether or not to provide at least defensive weapons to 

Ukraine? I know that question has been asked and hopefully that 

is something you carry back to your boss. Because as far as we are 

concerned nothing is going to get better unless we step up to our 

commitment to honor the promises that we made. And my feeling 

is nobody is going to trust us in the region if we don’t honor those 

commitments. 

Ambassador NULAND. Thank you, Congressman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank the gentleman for yielding back. We 

now go to Brian Higgins of New York. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary, how many Russian soldiers are in Ukraine today? 

Ambassador NULAND. Congressman, I am not in a position to 

give you a definitive number in this unclassified setting. You have 

seen Ben Hodges make a calculation from U.S. Army Europe. I 

would say it is in the thousands and thousands. I am sorry. 

29

Let me also, just while I have you here, say that what we can 

say in this unclassified setting is that since December, Russia has 

transferred hundreds of pieces of military equipment including 

tanks, armored vehicles, rocket systems, heavy artillery. The Russian military has its own robust command structure in eastern 

Ukraine ranging from general officers to junior officers. As the 

President said not too long ago, they are funding this war. They 

are fueling it. They are commanding and controlling it. 

Mr. HIGGINS. In practical terms does that constitute an invasion? 

Ambassador NULAND. We have made clear that Russia is responsible for fueling this war in eastern Ukraine. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes or no, constitutes an invasion. 

Ambassador NULAND. We have used that word in the past, yes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. If Ukraine was a member of NATO, under the collective defense posture of Article 5 what would the consequence of 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine be? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, Article 5 would give all of the 28 allies a responsibility to defend Ukraine from aggression. Just to 

make clear that even in 2008 when Ukraine was discussing with 

NATO an improvement in its relationship, at that stage we were 

only at the Membership Action Plan which is the preparatory 

phase. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Is it in reality Putin’s concern about America encroachment and NATO encroachment on what was formerly the Soviet Union? 

Ambassador NULAND. I can’t speak to what is in President 

Putin’s head. That is a place that I don’t think I can go. But what 

I can say is that there is no justification for being concerned about 

countries peacefully associating with a defensive alliance. We have 

said for 25 years that NATO is not a threat to a Russia that does 

not threaten us. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Russia’s defense spending has tripled since 2007. 

Today it is involved in about a $300-billion program to modernize 

its weapons. New types of missiles, bombers and submarines are 

being readied for deployment over the next 5 years. Spending on 

defense and security this year will increase by 30 percent in Russia 

representing one third of its Federal budget. Putin has said very 

clearly that nobody should try to shove Russia around when it has 

one of the world’s biggest nuclear arsenals. At last count, Russia 

had 8,000 nuclear weapons. He has threatened to use nuclear 

weapons on a limited basis, if that is possible, to force opponents, 

specifically the United States and NATO, to withdraw from a conflict in which Russia has a stake such as in Georgia and Ukraine. 

That is pretty ominous. That is a pretty ominous statement. Your 

thoughts? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, we obviously have great concerns 

about the massive increases in Russian defense budgeting over the 

recent years. It is particularly concerning given what is happening 

to the Russian economy and to the Russian people. As I said before, 

inflation across the country is now running 15, 17 percent. Food 

prices rampantly increasing including 40 percent in some areas. 

Credit at zero. The inability of Russians now to travel and to buy 

new apartments because they can’t get loans, et cetera. And at the 

same time he is pouring money into the military. So this is a 

30

Kremlin that is prioritizing foreign adventures over the needs of its 

own people and that is worrying. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Okay. I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Randy Weber of Texas. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Ambassador, you mentioned earlier the body bags, the 

boys going back to Russia. It had to be tough on them. Do you 

know what the body bag count, the numbers of soldiers they are 

losing? 

Ambassador NULAND. It is not possible, Congressman, to have a 

final count because of what Russia has done to mask these numbers. As you know they have criminalized discussion of it inside 

Russia. They have threatened mothers and wives and family members with pensions. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay, so you don’t know. 

Ambassador NULAND. But the Ukrainians assert that it is at 

least 400, 500 people. 

Mr. WEBER. And if they check into it too deeply they will lose 

benefits. 

Ambassador NULAND. Absolutely. 

Mr. WEBER. So what is the body count for Ukrainians? 

Ambassador NULAND. As I said in my statement, close to 6,000 

Ukrainians have lost their lives in this conflict. 

Mr. WEBER. So 6,000. 

Ambassador NULAND. Or over 6,000, I believe. 

Mr. WEBER. How long do you think we have before Ukraine becomes another Crimea? It is annexed into Russia. 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, as I said, Congressman, the entire 

thrust of our policy is to stop it where it is and roll it back if we 

possibly can. That is why we have been imposing these increasingly 

tough sanctions and you see the Russian economy suffering as a result, providing increasing amounts of security assistance albeit on 

the non-lethal side. 

Mr. WEBER. But the sanctions haven’t stopped the body bags 

from flowing both directions have they? 

Ambassador NULAND. They have not, and this is what we continue to try to seek is a full implementation of the commitments 

that Vladimir Putin himself just made less than 2 weeks ago in 

Minsk. 

Mr. WEBER. Do you trust him? 

Ambassador NULAND. Trust is not a word I use in that connection, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay, I think you are wise at least in that one regard. You said it is difficult for Russia to sustain their occupation 

of Crimea in your comments earlier. 

Ambassador NULAND. I am sorry. I didn’t say it was difficult for 

them to sustain it. I said they were hemorrhaging money. It is extremely expensive for them to sustain it. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, maybe that is part of our problem in Congress. 

That should be viewed as a difficulty. So they are hemorrhaging 

money. So you don’t think that that makes it difficult for them to 

sustain their occupation? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, they still have as you know more 

than $300 billion in sovereign wealth. What they are doing now is 

31

using the money of the Russian people, the hard earned money 

that should go for their long-term protection to prop up this puppet 

annexation occupation. 

Mr. WEBER. So we have made it difficult for them to sustain 

their—you don’t want to use the word ‘‘difficult.’’ You have made 

them spend money to sustain their occupation. 

Ambassador NULAND. We are declining to invest in this territory 

that is now occupied, yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay, so they are spending a lot of money. How do 

we make it that difficult and more so for them to be in the 

Ukraine? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, as I said, as we continue to watch 

this implementation or nonimplementation of Minsk we are looking 

at the next range of sectoral sanctions either to deepen in the sectors where we already have sanctions—on the finance side, on the 

energy side, on the defense side—or to add sectors of the Russian 

economy that we——

Mr. WEBER. Would you agree that we can make them hemorrhage money in Ukraine if we are destroying their tanks as they 

enter the country? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, they already have been hemorrhaging money on their weapons. 

Mr. WEBER. No, but that is not my question. If we are knocking 

out their tanks left and right, does that cost them a lot of money? 

Ambassador NULAND. It certainly would be money down the rat 

hole for sure. 

Mr. WEBER. And we would rather them having body bags going 

back to Russia than we would have body bags on this side of the 

border. Is that accurate? 

Ambassador NULAND. What we want is peace and an end to the 

body bags in any direction. 

Mr. WEBER. Do you think that Putin understands peace or do 

you think he understands force? 

Ambassador NULAND. Again I am not going to get inside his 

head. It is not a place to be. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, fair enough. If you are married like I 

am sometimes it is difficult to get into your spouse’s head. So let 

us put you over in the President’s head then. Can I do that? 

Ambassador NULAND. You are welcome to try, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. No, I think the comment is you are welcome to try. 

Is the President disengaged or not worried about this? 

Ambassador NULAND. Absolutely not. The President has been the 

leader of this Ukraine policy. He has been enormously engaged. I 

have been in meetings with him where he was passionate——

Mr. WEBER. He has 21 months left. How many more body bags 

have to take place in Ukraine before we send them lethal? And I 

will just call them lethal weapons. I hate the words ‘‘defensive 

weapons.’’ I mean a weapon is a weapon. So how long is it going 

to take? How many more body bags before we get in gear and make 

this decision? What do you think the President is thinking? 

Ambassador NULAND. Again these are his decisions to make. We 

will certainly convey to him your concerns. 

32

Mr. WEBER. Okay, then your decision from my vantage point is 

what kind of pressure, what kind of information are you giving to 

the President? This is Mr. President we need to act. 

Ambassador NULAND. Congressman, as I said a little bit earlier 

on in this hearing, I am going to take the same position that my 

Secretary took when he was here last week. The President has 

asked us for our advice. We have provided it to him, but I am going 

to keep that advice confidential for purposes of this hearing. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ambassador Nuland, for your testimony. I want to begin by also recognizing the tragic murder of Russian freedom fighter Boris Nemtsov 

who was brutally murdered in the streets of Moscow last weekend 

to of course urge our Government to do anything it can to ensure 

the perpetrators of this horrific crime are brought to justice. And 

I know many in this country are sending their thoughts and prayers to his family and to his friends and his colleagues. Unfortunately these so-called tragic events are quite common for those who 

dare to criticize Mr. Putin and his cronies, and I think it is important that we acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of this freedom 

fighter. 

I thank you for your testimony, and I want to just focus on the 

corruption efforts that are underway. As you well know, Ukraine 

has historically had the distinction of being, or dubious distinction 

of being one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and I wonder if you would speak to how the new government in Kyiv is addressing this problem. 

Are their reforms on pace? Are they going far enough? What are 

we doing to support those efforts? And are we seeing the tough decisions that need to be made and the kind of prosecutions and 

firings and the development of an independent judiciary to help advance the anti-corruption efforts that was a source of so much of 

what happened at the Maidan? And I just wondered if you would 

speak to some of those issues. 

Ambassador NULAND. Thank you, Congressman. Corruption has 

been a country killer for Ukraine. It has also been an opening for 

malign influence from the outside in Ukraine’s business. So not 

only because Ukraine’s own citizens demand it, but because the 

democratic health of the country demands it, this has been a major 

source of focus of collaboration within the Ukrainian Government. 

As I said at the outset, they have just over the last 3 months 

passed an enormous amount of legislation, much of it designed to 

tackle corruption. Just to name a few things, a new anti-corruption 

strategy; a new public procurement system; the creation of an anticorruption bureau and national agency for prevention of corruption; 

strengthened anti-money laundering regulations; disclosure of public officials’ domestic and overseas assets for the first time; partial 

judicial reform including of the prosecutor general, more to come. The U.S. is providing some $38 million in the assistance money 

that you have given us for that purpose. We have advisers and 

trainers in many of these entities. We are also supporting civil society for oversight and reform. Other new positive developments that 

go to the corruption and past dirty money practices, they are standing up a new patrol police. The police as you know have historically 

33

been subject to bribery. The new prosecutor general, Viktor 

Pshonka, has issued arrest warrants, new arrest warrants for some 

of the corrupt ex-officials. 

There is a new business ombudsman appointed. They have 

slashed the corrupt energy subsidy. They have cut payroll taxes to 

reduce incentives for unreported wages; eliminated eight regulatory 

agencies and consolidated them into one; increased transparency of 

state-owned companies; made banking recapitalization more transparent. A lot of this is legislation on the books. We now have to 

see it implemented. We have to see oligarchs and everybody pay 

their taxes, be immune from special and sweetheart deals. We will 

watch like a hawk. The Ukrainian people will watch like a hawk. 

I think the parties will be judged by this in local elections in October. But Ukraine is on the path. They have to stick to it now. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Great, thank you. And just to turn to a new subject. Could you sort of speak a little bit about what role the Ukrainian reliance on Russian energy is playing in this conflict and what 

the U.S. and our allies are doing to help alleviate Ukrainian reliance on Russia? And are European allies able to separate themselves from their own energy needs as this sort of conflict continues? 

Ambassador NULAND. Congressman, as you know energy has 

long been a noose that the Kremlin has had around the neck of 

subsequent generations of Ukrainian leaders. This government is 

bound and determined to break that. Our first effort was to help 

them get gas from parts of Europe other than Russia, so we worked 

with Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland last year to start reversing 

gas flows into Ukraine. 

We have worked with the European Union as they have brokered 

the gas deal that Ukraine cut, which was a much fairer deal for 

the winter of 2014–15. We are now working with them as I said 

to open up, demonopolize the energy sector to help them get more 

of their own energy out of the ground, to work on energy efficiency. 

If you have ever been to Kyiv in the winter and had government 

windows open you know how badly that is needed. About a third 

of the heat is going out the windows. It shouldn’t. 

So we are working on all of those things to break the dependence, but also to help Ukraine get to that place where it can be an 

energy supplier for Europe. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go now to Mr. Scott Perry of 

Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador, great to see you. Please don’t take any of the comments personally, but as an American, quite honestly I am disappointed and disgusted with the ineffectual and pathetic response 

from this administration regarding this circumstance in Ukraine. 

And I am just wondering, to start out, does the administration 

agree—because we have heard in other forums about grievances, 

legitimate grievances. So does the administration agree with the 

justification from Putin regarding the protection of ethnic Russians 

in any way, shape or form? 

34

Ambassador NULAND. There is nothing that justifies the kind of 

violence that we have seen Russia unleash in eastern Ukraine or 

in Crimea. 

Mr. PERRY. I agree with you. 

Ambassador NULAND. However——

Mr. PERRY. But do they have legitimate grievances? Does Russia 

have legitimate grievances in this regard? 

Ambassador NULAND. Russian speaking citizens in eastern 

Ukraine, like citizens in other parts of Ukraine, have long wanted 

some of the things that Russia championed for them—language, 

rights, decentralization. But all of those things were on offer first 

from the transitional government of Yatsenyuk from March onward, and since then with President Poroshenko and the new 

Rada. So there is no reason for 6,000 dead. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay, so I just want to make sure, because history 

sometimes get lost on us as we go through our days. But I just 

want to make sure that the administration is familiar and aware 

of the history of Stalin and Khrushchev in the ’20s and the ’30s 

and the terror, the Terror-Famine and the starvation of the 

Ukrainian people and the displacement and deportations and the 

reestablishment of Russians into the Ukraine. 

And so when Putin says that he is going to protect these Russian 

speaking citizens, with all due respect they were moved into 

Ukraine by killing the Ukrainians. And it is important to know 

that history when we talk about legitimate grievances. So I am 

concerned. I too agree that we should send defensive weapons to 

Ukraine. I am in the agreement camp on that. 

So does the current posture of or the strategic patience that I 

hear about, does the White House’s—well, how does that fit in? 

How does the decision not to send defensive weapons at this point, 

how does that fit into strategic patience or is it a part of it? 

Ambassador NULAND. Nobody has been patient with what we are 

seeing in eastern Ukraine. Just to remind we have sent——

Mr. PERRY. The Ukrainians have been patient because they have 

no choice. 

Ambassador NULAND. We have sent as you know $118 million 

in——

Mr. PERRY. Defensive weapons, so forget all that other stuff. Defensive weapons. I imagine you have been to a war zone. I have. 

Ambassador NULAND. Yes. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay, blankets and all that stuff, they don’t stop bullets. They don’t stop tanks. You must defend yourself. Harsh words 

and we will get back to you and we are deciding, that doesn’t help. 

So I am talking about defensive weapons and strategic patience. 

Where does one hinge on the other? How do they fall together? 

Ambassador NULAND. Some of the things we have sent do fall 

into the category of defensive non-lethal weapons. I would note 

again that the counterfire radar batteries that we have sent did 

save lives. They enabled the Ukrainian forces to target where firing 

was coming from so that they could defend against it. We have also 

provided support in the intelligence——

Mr. PERRY. Okay, listen. I get it. With all due respect that is the 

absolute minimum standard. It is not going to be effectual, which 

35

is why my opening statement about pathetic and ineffectual is 

valid in my opinion. 

Let me ask you this. Can you explain the concerns within the 

context, the concerns about providing defensive weapons within the 

context that the President requested hundreds of millions of dollars 

from this Congress for training and equipping for moderate fighters 

in Syria? 

So in that context where we are going to send those folks weapons, weapons, not defensive weapons, but weapons and training 

that somehow Ukraine and the people that have been there that 

are more like us than the other, they can’t have those weapons. 

How do we reconcile that? What is the calculation there? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, as you know the training and equipment request for Syria goes to the need to defeat the ISIL threat, 

which is a central threat as well to the homeland. I don’t work on 

Syria policy so I am going to refrain from commenting. 

Mr. PERRY. Do you find that to be a little incongruent? We don’t 

know who the Syrian fighters are. We don’t know—look, today they 

are fighting ISIS, tomorrow they are fighting Assad, the next day 

they are fighting us and we are going to train them and send them 

weapons? Don’t you find that a little incongruent? Have Ukrainian 

people ever said that they were going to fight the United States, 

kill us and the Great Satan? Have they ever said anything like 

that? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, certainly we will register your strong position on this issue, Congressman. I would say that $118 million 

in security support is not nothing. I hear you that you want to hear 

more. 

Mr. PERRY. At the end of my time here. We hear that sending 

defensive weapons will escalate the problem. Not sending them 

that won’t escalate the problem; there won’t be a problem because 

there will be no more Ukraine. 

Thank you very much, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Lois Frankel of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I was on that trip with 

you and Mr. Engel when we went to Ukraine last year. 

Thank you for your testimony. I want to say that I feel anxiety 

when I hear some of my colleagues with their unflattering remarks 

and I will tell you why. I have three questions. When we were in 

Ukraine we heard—I am going to follow up Mr. Cicilline’s question 

because he was with us. We heard time and time again how the 

corruption of the Ukrainian Government undermined the government, created an environment which I think you alluded to allowed 

Russia’s aggression to proceed, but it was not just the laws it was 

cultural, and so I would like you to, if you could, expound. 

The number one is, first of all, would you have even considered 

giving weapons to the previous government, Yanukovych, would 

you have considered that? And is the culture or the corruption that 

was in Ukraine which you are waiting to see if the reforms take 

place, how does that affect whether or not you are willing to turn 

arms over now? 

That is question number one. 

Number two, could you tell me the sanctions on Russia, what are 

the implications relative to the issues that we are facing in Syria 

36

and Iran? Have there been any implications? And number three, if 

you can get to it, can you tell us in your opinion what are the implications on our allies and relative to the Budapest Agreement if 

we do not resist Russia’s aggression? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, the last one is a big one, so let me 

just quickly go through the first ones. Our security relationship 

with Ukraine has gone through ups and downs after independence 

in ’91 partly related to the quality of governance at the top. In recent years under the Yanukovych regime it was severely constrained not only because of our concerns about the military but 

also because of our concerns about his human rights record including with regard to Yulia Tymoshenko. So we were doing very little. 

With regard to our current cooperation, we are subject to Leahy 

standards and appropriate vetting of units. One of the major lines 

of effort that we have going in our advisory effort with the Ukrainian military is to root out corruption and infiltration of that military. So that is something that we work on very hard. 

We have, as Secretary Kerry has made clear when he was up 

here and at every time he is before you, worked hard to continue 

to be able to work with Russia on global interests where our interests align. So that takes you to the work we do together in the 

P5+1 on Iran. That cooperation continues not as a favor by Moscow 

to the United States, but because they too have no interest in a nuclear-armed Iran. Similarly our work on Afghanistan, our work to 

try to come to terms with the violence in Syria, which has not been 

completely successful, but those conversations continue. So we 

judge that they do it out of their own interests—not as a favor to 

us. 

With regard to the threat to allies, we didn’t talk today but we 

have in the past about the intensive effort underway in the NATO 

space to ensure that the Article 5 deterrent is absolutely visible—

land, sea and air. We have young Americans as you know in the 

three Baltic states and Poland and soon in Bulgaria and Romania 

showing presence. We are working on new headquarters elements 

and other ways to be able to reinforce them very quickly if we need 

to. But, obviously, if the violence sweeps across Ukraine, if Ukraine 

breaks apart, falls, et cetera, I personally don’t think that the effort 

to gobble countries will end there. 

Ms. FRANKEL. And what, you said before the President is taking, 

or considerations as to whether to give further weapons or give 

weapons to Ukraine, what are the considerations? 

Ambassador NULAND. Without getting into it in too detailed a 

way in this setting, just to say again that we are giving a significant amount of non-lethal security support defensive weapons to 

the Ukrainians. The issue is whether to increase the lethality. The 

issue is the kind of systems. On the one hand it goes to the Ukrainian need and desire to defend against the incredibly lethal offensive 

things that Russia has put in place since January-February. On 

the other side it goes to whether this actually serves to harden or 

whether it escalates and is considered provocative and makes it 

worse. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

37

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Let us see, I am going to yield to 

the chair here, to Mr. Tom Emmer of Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Would you like to—why don’t you go ahead and chair this? I have 

a meeting that I am late for. 

Mr. EMMER [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Madam Secretary, you have already answered quite a few questions, but I want to run through something so you can clear this 

up for me. The Minsk agreement, you have referenced what Russia 

had agreed to implement. Could you please quickly tell me what 

did they agree to implement and what have they implemented 

since the agreement? 

Ambassador NULAND. Thank you, Congressman. Well, first just 

to remind that the February 12th agreement was an implementing 

agreement on prior commitments made by both Russia and the separatists on September 5th and September 19th. 

Mr. EMMER. Right. 

Ambassador NULAND. So the full package includes obligations 

both for the Ukrainian side and for Russia and the separatists. 

First and foremost, in the February 12th package, is a full ceasefire 

on the fighting line; a full pullback of heavy weapons to their 

ranges by both the Ukrainians and the Russians and separatists; 

full access for OSCE monitors to that zone to inspect and verify 

and to the rest of Ukraine. And then on the Ukrainian side thereafter——

Mr. EMMER. Why don’t we just stop on the Ukrainian side. 

Ambassador NULAND. Yes, okay. 

Mr. EMMER. Can you tell me if any of those three have actually 

been done in the last 3 weeks, 4 weeks? 

Ambassador NULAND. As I said at the outset, we have seen some 

progress in some parts of the fighting line, but we are concerned——

Mr. EMMER. Madam Secretary, I am sorry but we are limited on 

time. So again, the fighting has continued. There has been no 

ceasefire. 

Ambassador NULAND. It has. 

Mr. EMMER. The heavy equipment has not been pulled back. 

Ambassador NULAND. Not completely. 

Mr. EMMER. And nobody is getting access as you said in response 

to Representative Weber’s questions to figure out what the death 

totals are, et cetera, you just don’t have access. Funny how the 

fighting has continued after the most recent, the February 12th, 

and you testified that the President is engaged and that the ‘‘environment’’ will affect the calculus on the sanctions and the release 

of—and I am tired of calling them defensive weapons. They are 

weapons, weapons that the Ukrainians need to protect themselves. 

Russia continues to violate agreement after agreement. Ukrainians 

continue to die. 

What about the current ‘‘environment’’ needs to get worse before 

the President and his advisers adjust their calculus? Because you 

had said what the environment will determine whether we need to 

adjust the calculus, what about the environment needs to get worse 

for the Ukrainian people and for the stability in the region for this 

administration to adjust its calculus? 

38

Ambassador NULAND. Well, again we are watching the implementation of this agreement. I don’t disagree with you that it is 

very spotty, and we are more concerned today than we were yesterday by serious violations. The President is very engaged. He talked, 

as you saw the White House release yesterday, to five of his major 

European colleagues and to EU Council President Tusk. We are 

watching this day-to-day and he is evaluating day-to-day. 

Mr. EMMER. You know what, Madam Secretary, that is wonderful, and I am sure the Ukrainians appreciate the fact that somebody is watching what is happening from this side of the world. 

But when is it going to get bad enough that the President and this 

administration are actually going to follow through on promises 

that have been made to the Ukrainian people? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, again with regard to the promises 

that have been made for strong economic support and for strong security systems with your help——

Mr. EMMER. Well, I want to go back to if you disarm yourself to 

maintain stability in the region and we will be there. 

Ambassador NULAND. We will certainly convey your concern 

about this, Congressman. 

Mr. EMMER. Thank you. 

The Chair will now recognize next Mr. Bill Keating of Massachusetts. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank 

you for your work. I can only speak personally, but the briefings 

that I have had including classified briefings with you and with the 

Ambassador Pyatt have been extraordinary. The communications 

are great. I want to thank you for that. 

I also, I am going to deviate from my question, because at least 

once in this hearing I think we have to put this perspective in because it is reality. So many of the questions have been unilateral. 

It is the U.S. It is Russia. It is U.S. The reality is that is not where 

our strength is. The center of gravity in all of this, I think, from 

a military perspective was described by General Breedlove when he 

said our unity of effort with the Europeans is that strength, and 

it is what Putin didn’t bank on. So I am going to give you the opportunity to discuss how important the coalition is to the success 

of Ukraine. 

It is my feeling that without that unity with the U.S. that we are 

not going to be strong in our response and Ukraine won’t have the 

opportunity to move forward itself. So could you comment on that? 

Because it is lost somewhere in today’s hearing. 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, thank you for that, Congressman. I 

think I said earlier in the hearing that we in the European Bureau 

spend almost as much time working with Europeans on Ukraine as 

we do working with Ukrainians on Ukraine, because this unity has 

been so essential and because that unity is constantly being tested 

and probed by the Kremlin. Because if they can split us, obviously 

that is their best line to imperil Ukraine. 

So first and foremost, on the economic side where it has been a 

combination of our strong transatlantic support for the IFIs, our 

strong transatlantic contributions, both U.S. and European, that 

have made the $17.5-billion package that we have on offer for 

Ukraine possible now. Without that it wouldn’t have been. 

39

In the four to five rounds of sanctions that we have done, if the 

U.S. had done this unilaterally we would have had a situation 

where European companies could have just come in and backfilled. 

If we had not matched what Europe was willing to do, the opposite 

would have been true or you could have seen efforts to drive a 

wedge between us. We do believe that, particularly in September 

and December, the Kremlin underestimated both our unity and our 

ability to work together. It is not always as quick as we would like 

because we have 29 countries to coordinate, 34 if you include our 

other allies in NATO, but it does make us really strong in defense 

of Ukraine. 

Mr. KEATING. Yes, and when you look at Minsk and when you 

look at the back end that we would not have preferred in terms of 

Russia’s border issues, and when we are having these other discussions and these other questions about why can’t the U.S. just do 

this, simply do this, isn’t it important that we do this in a unified 

manner with Europe? And what would happen if we didn’t? What 

would happen if we just veered off the way some of these questions 

have been pointed today on our own and just done this? What 

would our prospects for success be diplomatically and militarily? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, again it would have just provided an 

opportunity for the Kremlin to divide us from major allies like Germany and France. I mean one of the reasons that we shout out 

Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande is that they are the 

ones who spent the 17 hours of hard diplomatic work with President Putin. And he had to hear that not only do we disapprove of 

what is going on and have serious concerns, but that all of Europe 

does too. And without that, he might have felt he could get away 

with it. 

Mr. KEATING. Yes. I have my own feelings that I would like to 

see defensive weapons in place myself, but I also can’t have this 

hearing and without commenting on the fact that we have to do 

this with partners and it is a dynamic decision. And if we move 

away from that we weaken ourselves. 

With that I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. EMMER. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes Representative Grace Meng from New York. 

Ms. MENG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking 

Member. And thank you, Ambassador, for being here today. I have 

a question. The Journal has been reporting on a $5.7-billion deal 

this week between the German utility RWE AG and an energy investment fund led by the Russian billionaire Mikhail Fridman in 

which the fund purchased RWE’s oil and gas arm DEA. 

This deal gives Mr. Fridman the assets to launch a new oil company with assets throughout Europe. DEA produces about 100,000 

barrels of oil per day. This is disconcerting for two reasons. One it 

is the sort of business that we are supposed to be deterring, and 

two, it provides for Russian control over significant European energy supplies. Mr. Fridman is not currently subject to U.S. sanctions despite his close ties with the Kremlin. Do you know whether 

he is or he might be a potential target for sanctions? 

Ambassador NULAND. Thank you for that. I am going to get back 

to you on some of the details, but just to make absolutely clear that 

U.S. and European sanctions have targeted Russian public and 

40

government assets and entities. Mr. Fridman runs one of the few 

remaining private companies in Russia, and as such has had his 

own strong views as a private citizen about appropriate RussianEuropean relations. 

But let me get back to you on how we have evaluated that particular deal. But it is not a Russian Government deal. It does not 

deepen the Russian Government’s ties into the European energy 

net or Europeans’ dependence on the Russian Government. 

Ms. MENG. Okay, thank you. My second question, a U.S. law currently allows for the vesting of frozen assets pursuant to IEEPA 

under certain circumstances. Such circumstances include when the 

U.S. is directly engaged in conflict with another country or when 

we have been attacked by another country. In such cases, the 

President has the authority to make designations of the frozen assets. 

Should we consider broadening the law to allow for vesting of frozen Ukrainian assets? Ukraine is in need of cash and this would 

be a good way to get cash into the country. 

Ambassador NULAND. Okay. I am going to admit you have 

stumped the witness. I am going to take that one and look at it 

with our Treasury colleagues. 

Ms. MENG. Okay, great. Thank you. And my last question. I 

would like to get your impression on Russian influence in Europe. 

Russians own media properties in Great Britain, and Russia has 

close ties with political parties in Britain and France, mainly the 

U.K. Independence Party as well as the National Front in France. 

We know of close German relationships as well. Some of the ties 

such as the energy relationships are clear, others are more in the 

shadows. 

Can you shed some light on Russian influence in the European 

media and finance sectors and give us a sense of who in the Western European political landscape are close with the Kremlin? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, thank for that question. This is 

something that we are watching extremely closely. I think the Russian investments in government propaganda in Europe are clear 

for everybody to see, the massive investment that their new platform, Sputnik, has made in Germany and France, et cetera. Interestingly, there has been quite a public backlash in both Germany 

and France to the kind of propaganda Russia is trying to sell, and 

the market share for that kind of effort has not been as big as they 

hoped. Just as in the United States, the market share for Russia 

today is relatively small because people want truth not Kremlin 

fabrication. 

That said, the more nefarious dirty money sloshing around is 

what you highlight. This question of funding candidates and political campaigns out of Kremlin coffers, setting up of false NGOs to 

look like they are representatives of civil society but really they are 

representatives of a foreign government’s view, we are watching all 

of this very closely with our allies and working together to expose 

it and make sure that the public in those countries knows where 

this money is coming from. 

Mr. EMMER. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ted Poe from Texas. 

Mr. POE. Thank the chairman. 

41

Thank you, Ambassador, for being here. Like a lot of folks, including you, I am concerned about Russian aggression. The Russians go into Georgia in 2008, they take one third of that country 

away from them, and the Russian tanks are still in that third and 

they are not going to leave. The West pontificated and said that 

that was bad, and meanwhile Putin is still there. And Russia goes 

into Crimea, takes over Crimea. Now they are in Eastern Europe. 

I believe when they successfully take over eastern Ukraine they 

will keep moving, maybe to the Baltics. 

Last year when you were here, May 8th, to be exact, I asked you 

the purpose of U.S. sanctions. And the question, and I have the 

transcript here if you want to see it, was is the purpose of our sanctions to stop the Russians or is the purpose of our sanctions to 

make the Russians leave Crimea? And you answered that the purpose of our sanctions was to make the Russians leave Crimea. Is 

that still the purpose of sanctions against Russia regarding Crimea? To make them leave? 

Ambassador NULAND. Yes, sir. We want Crimea restored to 

Ukraine. We have designated sanctions vis-a`-vis Crimea which as 

you know we deepened significantly in December, essentially denying U.S. companies the ability to invest in Crimea. Our European 

partners have done the same. We talked a little bit earlier in the 

hearing about the impact that that has had in Crimea and we will 

continue to keep those in place unless and until——

Mr. POE. So are the Russians leaving Crimea? 

Ambassador NULAND. It has not resulted in changing Russian 

policy. It has driven up the price for Crimea for the Russian coffers. 

Mr. POE. Well, that may be the sanctions. It may also be the 

world price of oil has dropped, which is the main reason for the 

Russian economy. 

Are the Russians building military installations in Crimea? 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, as you know the Russians have had 

bases historically in Crimea. 

Mr. POE. Are they building more? 

Ambassador NULAND. There is significant evidence to indicate 

that they are putting new improvements into those bases and new 

equipment. We can get you a classified briefing if you would like. 

Mr. POE. So the sanctions at least haven’t stopped Russian building of military installations in Crimea. Are any of those installations nuclear installations? 

Ambassador NULAND. I think we would like to speak to you 

about dual-use capability in a different setting, if I may. 

Mr. POE. Anyway they are building up their military presence in 

Crimea. 

Ambassador NULAND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POE. That would seem to me like they are there to stay. 

What do you think? 

Ambassador NULAND. I think we have to maintain the pressure 

and we have to maintain the cost. And we have to keep faith with 

Ukraine so that it can continue to try to get its territory back. 

Mr. POE. Well, when I talked to the President of Ukraine last 

year asking what we could do, he replied, paraphrasing, that they 

would prefer that we send something other than canned food to 

them, MREs, which is what we were doing. Are we still talking 

42

about helping them fight for their own freedom in the sense that 

we are giving them military aid? Are we still talking about that or 

are we actually doing that? 

Ambassador NULAND. Sir, we have over the last 14 months provided $118 million in security assistance. I can give you a rundown 

of what we have bought with that, but it includes things like 

counterfire radar batteries, communications equipment, counter 

jamming, full suite of emergency medical, all those kinds of things, 

training. And we will continue to look at what more we can do. 

Mr. POE. That is all non-lethal aid. We sending them any guns, 

bullets? 

Ambassador NULAND. No, sir. 

Mr. POE. Why not? That is what they want to defend themselves. 

Ambassador NULAND. As I said, we have continued to look at 

other requests from the Ukrainians including on the lethal side but 

no decisions have been made. 

Mr. POE. So the Russians are now in eastern Ukraine besides 

being in Crimea, which I do not think they are going to ever try 

to leave Crimea. Other nations, and I am meeting some Ambassadors today, are they concerned that they are next in the Russian 

aggression? What is our policy regarding Russian aggression, 

whether it is the Baltics or whether it is other countries of the 

former Soviet Union? What is our policy to thwart that? If we do 

have a policy. 

Ambassador NULAND. Well, Congressman, I didn’t go through it 

in length in this testimony. I have in past testimonies. But we are, 

with regard to NATO allies, starting with the decisions taken at 

the Wales Summit in September which you now see implemented, 

we are providing concrete visible reassurance to our NATO allies 

all along the eastern edge on land, sea and air. 

We have some 300 young Americans in the Baltics, in Poland. 

We will have new deployments in Bulgaria and Romania. They are 

exercising, et cetera. We are also working with those nations to establish headquarters elements that will allow NATO forces to move 

quickly in a contingency. We are standing up a very high readiness 

NATO force. All of this designed——

Mr. POE. Are we helping non-NATO countries——

Ambassador NULAND. We are as well. Just to say all of this designed to make it absolutely clear to the Kremlin that we will defend every inch of NATO territory and to set a deterrent. We are 

also providing security assistance to Georgia and to Moldova, the 

two countries most under threat, and continuing the relationship 

with other countries in the region. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EMMER. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

We appreciate the Ambassador’s time this morning. As you can 

tell, the committee is gravely concerned by the situation and specifically the dismemberment of Ukraine. We can’t wait forever. We 

look forward to following up on these critical issues. 

And with that the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(43)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

44

f


93669n.eps
45


93669m-1.eps
46

f


93669m-2.eps
47


93669b-1.eps
48

f


93669b-2.eps
49


93669c-1.eps
50

Æ


93669c-2.eps