Ivo Daalder - US Ambassador to Nato 2009 - 2013, Ihor Dolhov - Ukraine's Ambassador to Nato HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk. Can a frantic round of international diplomacy

deliver a deescalation of the Ukraine crisis? The immediate aim is

to avoid a shooting war, and the longer term challenges to persuade

Russia to accept a new political landscape in Kiev. Can it be done? I

am joined from Brussels by Ukraine's Ambassador to NATO, Ihor

Doldhov, and from Chicago by the recently retired US ambassador to

the same organisation, Ivo Daalder. In this battle between Putin and the

West, who wins? Ivo Daalder in Chicago in the US,

and Ihor Doldhov in Brussels, ambassadors both, welcome to

HARDtalk. Very pleased to be here. Thank you. Let me start with you,

Ihor Doldhov, would you expect that right now in this unfolding crisis,

it is Vladimir Putin who is pulling the strings? He is acting, and

everyone else has to react. Thank you for the question, and let me

from the beginning put at the centre of our attention today the most

important subject. It is Ukraine, and Ukrainian people. It is not

about Putin and the West. It is about Ukraine and the choices of the

people. We really appreciate all strong support that we have received

from NATO, from the EU, from different capitals, but as you see,

our efforts are not sufficient to convince the Russian Federation to

stop military invasion, to pull back all troops, and to come back to the

political solution of the situation. No, that is the truth. You say it is

all about the Ukrainian people, but the fact is that Vladimir Putin has

ordered his troops to essentially takeover Crimea, and they are going

nowhere, it seems. That is a reality you have two now react to, and live

with. Unfortunately, we have to live with that, but again, let me

reconfirm that we are not alone. We are not for Britain, or neglected by

the world community -- forbidden. We have strong support from UN, NATO,

and the Black Sea Mission will be deployed there, and altogether we

will be able to convince Moscow to stop the invasion. Let's cross from

Brussels to Chicago. Recently retired from NATO, but I know still

watching events in Europe very closely, Ivo Daalder, you believe

that part of the problem here is that the West, perhaps led by the

US, Miss red Vladimir Putin's reaction to the amazing political

events we saw in the past few months. ? Think in the past few

months we have had a situation where around the world we expect nations

to behave in a certain way, and one of which is not to invade

neighbouring countries. This was clearly violated. I don't think that

anybody has had any illusions about Mr Putin or what it is that he is

after, it is very clear that he is a man who has said that the breakup of

the Soviet Union was the greatest crisis of our century. We have seen

this going on with regard to Ukraine for many years, in particular since

late last year when the EU was trying to negotiate and Association

agreement. Did anybody expect him to move as brazenly as he did over the

weekend? Perhaps not. But the reality is that no one, and that

includes no one in the US, Europe, NATO, United Nations, is willing to

accept this new situation, and everyone is united to find a way to

put the pressure on Russia so that we can get back to the status quo,

in which the Ukrainian people can choose their own people. We will get

to that unwillingness, and what it means in practical terms in a

moment, but just sticking with what you know well, which is US strategy

towards Russia during the Obama administration, would you now expect

that the strategy has failed from beginning to end? -- accept. It

began with the US wanting to hit a reset button. We know that Putin

would happily send his troops into another sovereign nation to achieve

Russia's own ends, we saw that from Georgia, yet you still talked about

a reset button. Then, you are seemingly taken by surprise when he

did the same thing in Ukraine. Let's be clear. The President, when he

came into office in 2009, said, let's look at those areas that are

in difficult situations, and let's look at those areas. That worked in

Afghanistan, where US troops were able to use Russian infrastructure,

we worked very closely with Russia to put sanctions on Iran, to get us

to the point where we are today, where we have a negotiated solution.

We have negotiated a major strategic armaments agreement to reduce

nuclear weapons. No one had any illusions about who they were

dealing with in Russia, after all, this is the president who decided

not to have a summit with President Putin because there was nothing to

talk about. The issue of whether some would have seen what was going

to happen over the weekend is before us. Was President Putin going to do

the kinds of things he was going to do this weekend or next weekend, we

don't know? That is a judgement that the intelligence community made, and

frankly not just the US intelligence community, but every intelligence

community. Now we know, and we know that the situation needs to be

reversed, that we need to find a way back to a situation in which Ukraine

is in full control of not only its territory, but its own destiny.

Doesn't help, and I ask you this a diplomat, when some of the most

significant voices in the US, such as John McCain and Hillary Clinton,

like in what Russia is doing in the Ukraine to what the Nazis did in

Europe in the nineteen thirties? Is that helpful? We live in a democracy

where people can say what they want. As Robert Gates said in the

Washington Post this morning, we want to speak with an American

voice. We need to leave the question of what happened and how it happened

behind, and the United with a strategy, that works with the US and

European allies, to get what we want. Let's talk with some of the

partners that Ukraine has, and what might be on offer in terms of

assistance. Ihor Doldhov, you represent Ukraine at NATO, there has

been some talk, and one of your ambassadorial colleagues in Ukraine

has mentioned this already. There was a suggestion that the UN in

terms of a quid pro quo on assistance in the long-term, may be

looking for a payback. Ukraine agreeing to take some of the

infrastructure for the US missile defence system. You think that is

the way Ukraine should be handling this right now? Looking for those

sorts of tieups with the US, NATO and the West? All options are being

discussed. For Ukraine, it is not only a Ukrainian problem, but it is

a challenge for the globe, which we now have faced. It is about global

and European security. Some decisions will be taken after the

crisis is settled, and Ukraine will be put back on the right track,

without any foreign presence in my own country. If that is what is

being discussed right now, in terms of Ukraine's strategic teacher, if

NATO members led by the US are suggesting that in the long run

Ukraine might be part of a missile defence shield run by the US, surely

it simply proves Russia's point, that he we have a fundamental

confrontation which the Western powers are trying to tempt Ukraine

to become a part of the West European, US lead, military

alliance. It is Cold War mentality returning. I agree, so-called

Russian spring in Crimea is a comeback from Cold War. But what the

Ukrainian people want, what we would like to have, is we would like to

have Ukraine as a prosperous, independent state in Europe. Because

we are in Europe, and we believe that our future is in Europe. If we

talk about possible measures and military capabilities, Ukraine is

one of the strongest partners of NATO, we participated in all NATO

issues. In terms of NATO membership in the future, that is up to the

Ukrainian people to decide. Viktor Yanukovych was the politician in the

Ukraine who stood up against NATO membership, and he won a democratic

election, which was regarded as pretty much free and fair by the

rest of the world. Are we not in danger of talking ourselves into a

conflict, East West Cold War style conflict? I would agree with that. I

think when President Yanukovych was elected, and announced that Ukraine

was meant to be aligned with no one, including halting the prospect of

seeking membership of NATO, NATO accepted that. It was not an issue

of whether NATO liked it or not, it was an issue of whether Ukraine and

the officially elected government had decided that. This isn't about

where the Ukraine becomes a member of NATO, or even whether it signed

and Association agreement with the EU, it is really about whether

Ukraine as the government, and its people, can make decisions without

intimidation or foreign forces on their soil. Let me get back to the

issue of missile defence, because I don't want to leave it hanging. As

far as I am aware, and I spent a large part of the last four years in

NATO working on this, no plan, none whatsoever, for deploying missile

assets in Ukraine, or indeed anywhere else besides where we have

long said we would, as an alliance, like to see NATO missile defences,

which is on Alliance territory, in Romania and Poland. The idea that

this is about the deployment of missile defences in Ukraine is

really not correct. We have painted some of the strategic, big picture

ideas that have been brought into play over the last few days as

people have discussed the future of Ukraine. Specifically, Russian

forces we know are in control of Crimea, and, Ihor Doldhov, your new

PM has suggested that while he will never discuss any change to the

sovereignty of Crimea, that is, it must stay Ukrainian, he has said he

is prepared to talk about much greater autonomy. So, tell me what

you think a compromise over Crimea might look like. It is not about

compromise. Ukraine is a multinational country, and yes,

Crimea has a very special status within Ukraine. Yes, it is

autonomous. Yes, rights of autonomy could be expanded. There is nothing

strange in that. Of course, central government in Kiev, and Crimea,

should come back to that issue and discuss what could be done. Let me

be again very clear, the territory of Crimea is, for example, I am in

Brussels now, and Crimea is ten times bigger than Luxembourg, in

terms of territory. The population is around 2 million people. 60% or

more is ethnic Russian. Yes. More than 300,000 people in Crimea are

people who came back, returned, due to one of the very first an

important decisions of independent Ukrainian government, keen -- to

invite them to go back home from places... From when they were

deported by Stalin. The population is therefore a mixture. Of course we

have to remember that the economy of Crimea is mostly oriented on

tourism. The military presence of Russian troops doesn't help in that

sense. Of course local populations wouldn't be happy to have this

military presence at the expense of possible incomes and possible

tourism, which... Maybe it's for them to decide in a referendum,

which is what the Russians are talking about. A form of self

determination that they say they are willing to recognise. Recognise

what? What I know officially is that, yes, it can be discussed or

voted by the population of Crimea during the referendum. But more

rights and powers within Ukraine, not about separation. At the same

time... Sorry. I just want to switch to Ivo Daalder with this thought. Do

you think the new Ukrainian government that came into power

after Yanukovych departed the scene have made some fundamental mistakes?

For example, the decision to ban the use of Russian as the official

second language was later repealed but it was unimportant, symbolic

moment. Then the decision to include the very far right politicians as

senior ministers in the government. There was also the language which

said, we are going to pursue our European future. All of these in

different ways were bound to upset Russia. Do you think it is now time

for the new Ukrainian government to rethink and maybe reform itself and

send signals to the ethnic Russian and Russian speaking population that

they are truly seeking to be a government of all Ukrainians? That's

exactly what they have been doing from the moment they were in power.

They reached out immediately to the party of regions to be part of the

government. There was the repeal of a very recently enacted law in

regard to Russian languages, which was immediately vetoed. The repeal

of that law was vetoed. There has been a willingness to negotiate and

talk to all people in all countries around the world. The issue isn't

about what the Ukrainian government need to do. The issue is what the

Russian government decided. That it could determine what happens in

Ukraine, by not only authorising the use of force anywhere in Ukraine but

also saying that when any Russian speaking people needed protection

from Russian forces, they deployed Russian forces. As long as there is

a military power saying they have the right to intervene and has

actual forces in the territory, your ability to have a reasonable

discussion about the way forward is compromised. That is what is going

on here. Not what is happening in Kiev but what is happening in

Moscow. That's where the decisions are being made, where the insecurity

of Ukraine and Europe and the International order is being

affected. Until we get back to an idea that whatever the differences

and interests Russia may have in Ukraine, those are not going to be

solved by the use or deployment of military forces. We don't have much

to talk about. Washington believes it has to talk about potential

punishments. Economic sanctions, boycotts and other punitive measures

against Vladimir Putin and his government, if he doesn't exceed two

western requests and take the military out of their current

positions in Crimea. The problem is, you appear to have misjudged... The

US government seems to have misjudged the enthusiasm in Europe

for punitive sanctions. Well, we will see. It's early days yet.

Clearly, all European governments, and the US and Canada, indeed many

other governments around the world, believe that what has happened is

completely unacceptable. That it's a complete violation of international

law, of the Helsinki act, of the UN Charter, of the bilateral and

collateral agreements... But those are words which are easy to issue.

When we see leaked documents from big -- from the UK government which

suggest in London there is little appetite for real trade sanctions,

no desire to block Russian access to London as a financial centre, that

is the reality. We will see. There is a major meeting of the European

heads of state tomorrow in Brussels. That's the time when there is an

opportunity to put some of the screws on. We have to make the cost

to Mr Putin for having done this. Sorry to interrupt. That is easy for

an American to say. You don't have very strong trade ties with Russia.

Germany, 40% of its energy comes from Russia. Its biggest trade

partner. It's a different scenario in Berlin. I would turn it around.

In terms of the vulnerability economically, Russia is far more

vulnerable to sanctions than the Europeans. There might be a

short-term cost of having real sanctions, in the long-term, we know

where the cost lives. I'll tell you what... Sorry. There is a real

question here at about what you are willing to do. Right now, the

largest exporter of gas to Europe is Norway. The United States is in the

middle of a gas revolution, providing new opportunity for new

sources of energy. I would argue that we really sit down and think

about what is happening. You are talking, if I may, long-term shifts

in economic relations. I am talking now. Ihor Dolhov, if we talk

vulnerability, the most vulnerable player is Ukraine because your

economy is bust. The public finances are bust. You need support now. The

EU and US are talking about financial support but the only real

support you have in your pocket is from Russia, $15 billion, which is

now suspended. The bottom line is, Vladimir Putin has leverage because

he knows that Ukraine still needs Russia. I wouldn't put the question

like that. Who needs Russia and why. We continue to believe that there is

a global community and we need to continue daily business with all

players. Yes, Russia is a difficult partner. I remember very well, as

well as many, my friends in Brussels, the gas war with Russia.

It doesn't help. Yes, Ukraine is vulnerable. Yes, we are dependent.

Yes, we have possibilities to decrease this dependence. But, at

the same time, this dependence is bilateral because Russia also needs

the market to sell its gas or its oil. It just cannot be, I do know,

get for nowhere. Somebody has to buy it. The problem is Ukraine continues

to pay a price that's higher than... I just want to end with

this. You can't change your country's history, you can't change

its geography or its economic and cultural relations. The only way out

of this crisis is for you to talk and do a deal with Vladimir Putin.

We are waiting for this talk and we are open. Ivo Daalder, can it be

done? First of all, it requires the Russian government to accept the

legitimacy of the government in Kiev. It's hard to talk with a

government that's your existence. The change needs to happen in Kiev

and in Moscow. The question is, how will we make that happen? OK. Ivo

Daalder and Ihor Dolhov, thank you both very much for being on

HARDtalk. Good morning. If you heard a rumour

that weather conditions are settling down, keep listening. You might not

be disappointed. Now, we start with cloud and rain from this weather

front that's pushing in from the west. It might be a chilly start in

the extreme south-east corner.