Aug 21, 2017
On August 2nd, President Trump signed a new law that passedCongress with the overwhelming support of both political parties,which imposes sanctions on three countries: Russia, North Korea,and Iran. In this episode, we examine the new sanctions and thebig-picture motivations behind them. In the process, we jump downthe rabbit hole of the U.S. involvement in the 2014 regime changein Ukraine.
Executive Producers: Joseph Clerici and Anonymous
Please support Congressional Dish:
- Click hereto contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, orBitcoin
- Clickhere to support Congressional Dish for each episode viaPatreon
- Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL32536
Thank you for supporting truly independent media!
Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes
- CD041:Why Attack Syria?
- CD067: What Do We Want In Ukraine?
- CD068:Ukraine Aid Bill
- CD108:Regime Change
- CD150:Pivot to North Korea
Episode Outline
H.R. 3364:Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act
Title I: Iran Sanctions
- Gives the Executive Branch additional power to block property or exclude from the United States both companiesand people who materially contribute to Iran's ballistic missileprogram.
- Orders the President to enact sanctions that block property andfinancial transactions for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard-Corps Quds Force and it's affiliatesstarting 90 days after enactment, which is November 1,2017.
- Orders the President to block property and prohibit from theUnited States any person or company that materially contributes tothe transfer to Iran any battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, combatplanes, attack helicopters, warships, missiles, or parts of thoseitems.
- Sanctions prohibiting travel to the United States and financialtransactions are exempted for humanitarian purposes.
- The President can waive the sanctions for two 180-day periods by notifyingCongress.
Title II: Russia Sanctions
Subtitle A: Sanction related to terrorism and illicit financingSense of Congress
- "It is the sense of Congress that the President should continueto uphold and seek unity with European and other key partners onsanctions implemented against the Russian Federation, which havebeen effective and instrumental in countering Russian aggression inUkraine"
- Orders the President to submit reports outlining his reasons toCongress before terminating or waiving sanctions relating to Russia,Ukraine, and Syria
- The President can not terminate or waive the sanctions on Russia, Ukraine,and Syria within 30 days of submitting his report unless a branchof Congress passes a resolution to allow it.
- Makes state-owned companies in the rail, metals, and mining sectorssubject to sanctions.
- Limits financial loans to Russian industries.
- Prohibits the transfer of goods & services (except banking)that support new Russian deepwater oil drilling, Arctic offshore drilling, or shaleprojects. Russians need to be have a 33% share or more in thecompany for the sanctions to apply.
- Forces the President to enact sanctions in situations when itwas previously optional.
- Gives the President the option to enact sanctions on companiesand individuals who provide materials to Russia for energy exportpipelines valued at $1 million or more.
- Forces the President to block property and deny visas to anyonewho provides the government of Syria financial, material, ortechnical support for getting almost any kind of weapon.
- The sanctions do not apply to products for Russia that are forspace launches.
Subtitle B: Countering Russian Influence in Europe andEurasia
- Appropriates $250 million for a "Countering Russian InfluenceFund" which will be used for "protecting critical infrastructureand electoral mechanisms" for members of NATO, the European Union,and "countries that are participating in the enlargement process ofthe North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the European Union,including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia,Moldova, Kosovo, Serbia, and Ukraine." The money can also be usedto information distribution.
- There is a list of nongovernmental & international organizationseligible to receive the money.
- The Secretary of State will work with the Ukrainian governmentto increase the amount of energy produced in Ukraine.
- This will "include strategies for market liberalization"including survey work need to "help attract qualified investmentinto exploration and development of areas with untapped resourcesin Ukraine." The plan will also support the implementation of a newgas law "including pricing, tariff structure, and legal regulatoryimplementation." and "privatization of government owned energycompanies."
- American taxmoney is contributing $50 million for this effort from the 2014Ukraine aid law and $30 million more from this law. The money will be availableuntil August 2022.
Title III: North Korea Sanctions
- Expands existing mandatory sanctions to include anyone whoprovides North Korea with any weapons or war service, aviationfuel, or insurance or registration for aircraft or vessels. Alsoexpands sanctions to include anyone who gets minerals, includinggold, titanium ore, vanadium ore, copper, silver, nickel, zinc, orrare earth minerals from North Korea.
- Expand optional sanctions to include anyone who purchasesabove-the-U.N.-limited amounts of coal, iron, textiles, money,metals, gems, oil, gas, food, or fishing rights from North Korea.Also sanctions anyone who hires North Korean workers, conductstransactions for the North Korean transportation, mining, energy,or banking industries, or participates in online commerce,including online gambling, provided by the government of NorthKorea.
- Prohibits North Korean ships from entering US waters.
Additional Reading
- Article: Iran could quit nuclear deal in 'hours' if new U.S. sanctionsimposed: Rouhani, Reuters, August 15, 2017.
- Article: The Nation is reviewing a story casting doubt on Russian hack ofDNC by Erik Wemple, The Washington Post, August 15, 2017.
- Article: Iranian Parliament, Facing U.S. Sanctions, Votes to Raise MilitarySpending by Thomas Erdbrink, The New York Times, August 13,2017.
- Article: A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack byPatrick Lawrence, The Nation, August 9, 2017.
- Article: North Korea's missile tests by Joshua Berlinger, CNN, August 7,2017.
- Article: Iran Says New U.S. Sanctions Violate Nuclear Deal by RickGladstone, The New York Times, August 1, 2017.
- Article: Iran Reports Successful Launch of Missile as U.S. Considers NewSanctions by Thomas Erdbrink, The New York Times, July 27,2017.
- Article: Trump Ends Covert Aid to Syrian Rebels Trying to Topple Assadby David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt and Ben Hubbard, The New YorkTimes, July 19, 2017.
- Article: Trump Recertifies Iran Nuclear Deal, but Only Reluctantly byPeter Baker, The New York Times, July 17, 2017.
- Article: Russians targeted election systems in 21 states, but didn't changeany results, officials say by Joseph Tanfani, Los AngelesTimes, June 21, 2017.
- Article: Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before2016 Election by Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle andRyan Grim, The Intercept, June 5, 2017.
- Article: The $110 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia is fake news byBruce Riedel, Brookings, June 5, 2017.
- Article: Iran Nuclear Deal Will Remain for Now, White House Signals byGardiner Harris and David E. Sanger, The New York Times, May 17,2017.
- Report: AssessingRussian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections,National Intelligence Council, January 6, 2017.
- Article: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking by David E.Sanger, The New York Times, December 29, 2016.
- Article: Murphy leads CT delegation in official overseas travel by AnaRadelat, The CT Mirror, March 13, 2015.
- Article: Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy by Zachary DaviesBoren, Business Insider, April 16, 2014.
- Article: Ukraine wins IMF lifeline as Russia faces growth slump byNatalia Zinets and Elizabeth Piper, Reuters, March 27, 2014.
- Article: Ukraineorders Crimea troop withdrawal as Russia seizes naval base byMarie-Louise Gumuchian and Victoria Butenko, CNN, March 25,2014.
- Article: Defense Ministry: 50% Of Ukrainian Troops in Crimea Defect toRussia, Ukrainian News Agency, March 24, 2014.
- Article: European Union signs landmark association agreement withUkraine by Adrian Croft, Reuters, March 21, 2014.
- Article: Crimea applies to be part of Russian Federation after vote to leaveUkraine by Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, The Guardian, March17, 2014.
- Article: The February Revolution, The Economist, February 27, 2014.
- Article: Ukrainian MPs voteto oust President Yanukovych, BBC News, February 22, 2014.
- Article: Ukraine: Yulila Tymoshenko released as country lurches towardssplit by Conal Urquhart, The Guardian, February 22, 2014.
- Transcript: Ukraine Crisis:Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call, BBC, February 7,2014.
- Article: Putin: Russia to buy $15 billion in Ukraine bonds by VladimirIsachenkov and Maria Danilova, USA Today, December 17, 2013.
- Article: EUsuspends trade talks with Ukraine, crowds rally against govt,Reuters, December 15, 2013.
- Article: Senators McCain, Murphy join massive Ukraine anti-governmentprotest, threaten sanctions, Fox News, December 15, 2013.
- Article: Ukraine parliament rejects proposed laws to release Tymoshenkoby Richard Balmforth and Pavel Polityuk, Reuters, November 21,2013.
- Article: Ukraine suspends talks on EU trade pact as Putin wins tug ofwar by Ian Traynor and Oksana Grytsenko, The Guardian, November21, 2013.
- Article: Ukraine signs $10 billion shale gas deal with Chevron by PavelPolityuk and Richard Balmforth, Reuters, November 5, 2013.
- Article: Exclusive - EU, IMF coordinate on Ukraine as Russia threatlooms by Luke Baker and Justyna Pawlak, Reuters, October 31,2013.
- Press Release: Statementby IMF Mission to Ukraine, International Monetary Fund, October31, 2013.
- Article: Ukraine's EU trade deal will be catastrophic, says Russia byShaun Walker, The Guardian, September 22, 2013.
- Article: U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News toAmericans by John Hudson, ForeignPolicy.com, July 14,2013.
- Article: Ukrainian tycoon Firtash takes over bank Nadra, Reuters, May 4,2011.
References
- GovTrack: H.R. 3364:Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act Overview
- GovTrack: H.R. 4152:Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and EconomicStability of Ukraine Act of 2014 Overview
- GovTrack: H.R. 5859:Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014
- IMF Report: Ukraine2012 Article IV Consultation
- CSPAN Video: Iran's Response to U.S. Sanctions, July 18, 2017.
- CSPAN Video: BritishPrime Minister Camerson Question Time, December 18, 2013.
- CSPAN: Victoria NulandProfile
- CSPAN: Anne W. PattersonProfile
Executive Orders
- Executive Order 13757: Taking Additional Steps to Address theNational Emergency With Respect to Significant MaliciousCyber-Enabled Activities, December 28, 2016
- Executive Order 13694: Blocking the Property of Certain PersonsEngaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, April1, 2015
- Executive Order 13685: Blocking Property of Certain Persons andProhibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Regionin Ukraine, December 19, 2014
- Executive Order 13662: Blocking Property of Additional PersonsContributing to the Situation in Ukraine, March 20, 2014
- Executive Order 13661: Blocking Property of Additional PersonsContributing to the Situation in Ukraine, March 16, 2014
- Executive Order 13660: Blocking Property of Certain PersonsContributing to the Situation in Ukraine, March 6, 2014
Visual References
Sound Clip Sources
House Debate: House Debate on Russia, Iran and North Korea Sanctions, July25, 2017.
Timestamps & Transcripts
- 1500 Rep. Pete Sessions (TX): Thebill that was passed by the Senate risked giving Russian energyfirms a competitive advantage across the globe by inadvertentlydenying American companies access to neutral third-party energymarkets where there would simply be a small or diminished Russianpresence. The bill before us today prevents Russia from being ableto weaponize these sanctions against U.S. energy firms. And I wantto thank Chairman Royce for his hard work on this issue. I alsowant to ensure that we have an understanding of the definition ofthe word controlling in Section 223(d) of H.R. 3364. For purposesof clarification and legislative intent, the term controlling meansthe power to direct, determine, or resolve fundamental,operational, and financial decisions of an oil project through theownership of a majority of the voting interests of the oilproject.
- 1515 Rep. Tim Ryan (OH): What’shappening with these sanctions here in the targeting of Russian gaspipelines—their number one export—I think is entirely appropriate.The Nord Stream 2, which carries gas from Russia through theBaltics to Germany—and I know Germany isn’t happy about it, butthis is something that we have to do. And the point I want to makeis we have to address this issue in a comprehensive way. We mustcontinue to focus on how we get our gas here in the United States,our natural gas, to Europe, to our allies, so they’re not sodependent on Russia. We’ve got to have the sanctions, but we’vealso got to be shipping liquid natural gas to some of these alliesof ours so they’re not so dependent on the Russians, which is partand parcel of this entire approach.
Senate Session: "Skinny Repeal" vote down, July 27, 2017.
Transcript
- Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY): Mr. President, andlast year we know the United States was victim of an attack by aforeign power on the very foundation of this dear democracy: theright of the people to a free and fair election. The consensus viewof 17 agencies is that Mr. Putin interfered in the 2016election.
Hearing: North Korea Policy, Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee onEast Asia, the Pacific and International Cyber Security, July 25,2017.
Witnesses
- Bruce Klingner: Senior Research Fellow of the HeritageFoundation
- Leon Sigal: Director of Northeast Asia Cooperative SecurityProject at the Social Science Research Council (SSRSC)
- Susan Thornton: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for EastAsian and Pacific Affairs
Screenshot: No other Senators in the room Timestamps &Transcripts
- 3:48 Sen. Cory Gardner (CO): LastCongress, I lead the North Korea Sanctions and Policy EnhancementAct, which passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to nothing. Thislegislation was the first stand-alone legislation in Congressregarding North Korea to impose mandatory sanctions on the regime’sproliferation activities, human-rights violations, and maliciouscyber behavior. According to recent analysis from the Foundationfor the Defense of Democracies, North Korea’s sanctions have morethan doubled since that legislation came into effect on February18, 2016. Prior to that date, North Korea ranked 8th behindUkraine, Russia, Iran, Iraq, the Balkans, Syria, Sudan, andZimbabwe. Even with the 130% sanctions increase after thelegislation passed this Congress, North Korea is today still onlythe 5th most sanctioned country by the United States.
- 21:22 Sen. Cory Gardner: Could youtalk a little bit about the timing of the travel ban? SusanThornton: Yeah. So, we believe that within the coming weekwe will publish a notice in the Federal Register, outlining theperiod of consultation and what we’re proposing, which is a generaltravel restriction, that will be in the Federal Register for a30-day comment period. And the proposal is to, I think as you know,make U.S. passports not valid for travel into North Korea unlessyou get—an application is made for a one-time trip, and you get alicense or sort of a permission to make that trip. And so that’llbe in the Federal Register for 30 days. Gardner:Is that trip allowable under a humanitarian exemption? Is that thepurpose of that allow— Thornton: Right, right. Forthe subsequent appl— you’d have to make an in-person applicationfor a trip to— Gardner: And are we encouragingother nations to do the same, and have others made the samedecision? Thornton: We have encouraged otherpeople to make decisions about restricting travel and other—becausetourism is obviously also a resource for the regime that we wouldlike to see diminished. I don’t think so far there are other peoplethat have pursued this but this will be sort of the initial one,and we will keep talking to others about that.
- 1:12:32 Leon Sigal: A policy ofmaximum pressure and engagement can only succeed if nucleardiplomacy is soon resumed and the North’s security concerns areaddressed. We must not lose sight of the fact that it’s North Koreathat we need to persuade, not China, and that means taking accountof North Korea’s strategy. During the Cold War, Kim Il Sung playedChina off against the Soviet Union to maintain his freedom ofmaneuver. In 1988, anticipating the collapse of the Soviet Union,he reached out to improve relations with the United States, SouthKorea, and Japan in order to avoid overdependence on China. Thathas been the Kims’ objective ever since. From Pyongyang’s vantagepoint, that aim was the basis of the 1994 Agreed Framework and theSeptember 2005 six-party joint statement. For Washington,obviously, suspension of Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programswas the point of those agreements, which succeeded for a time inshuttering the North’s production of fissile material and stoppingthe test launches of medium- and longer-range missiles. Bothagreements collapsed, however, when Washington did little toimplement its commitment to improve relations, and, of course,Pyongyang reneged on denuclearization. That past is prologue. Nowthere are indications that a suspension of North Korean missile andnuclear testing and fissile material production may again provenegotiable. In return for a suspension of its production ofplutonium and enriched uranium, the Trading with the Enemy Actsanctions imposed before the nuclear issue arose could be relaxedfor yet a third time, and energy assistance unilaterally halted bySouth Korea in 2008 could be resumed. An agreement will requireaddressing Pyongyang’s security needs, including adjusting ourjoint exercises with South Korea, for instance by suspendingflights of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers into Korean airspace. Thoseflights were only resumed, I want to remind you, to reassure ourallies in the aftermath of the North’s nuclear tests. If thosetests are suspended, B-52 flights can be, too, without anysacrifice of deterrence. North Korea’s well aware of the reach ofU.S. ICBMs and SLBMs, which, by the way, were recently testlaunched to remind them. The U.S. can also continue to bolster,rotate, and exercise forces in the region so conventionaldeterrence will remain robust. The chances of persuading NorthKorea to go beyond another temporary suspension to dismantle itsnuclear missile programs, however, are slim without firmcommitments from Washington and Seoul to move toward political andeconomic normalization; engage in a peace process to end the KoreanWar; and negotiate security arrangements, among them anuclear-weapons-free zone that would provide a multilateral legalframework for denuclearization. In that context, President Trump’swillingness to hold out the prospect of a summit with Kim Jong-unwould also be a significant inducement.
- 1:23:06 Sen. Ed Markey (MA): We“convinced” Qaddafi to give up his nuclear-weapon program, we“convinced” Saddam Hussein to give up his nuclear-weapon program,and then subsequently we participated in a process that led totheir deaths.
Emergency Meeting: U.N. Security Council Meeting on North Korea Sanctions, August5, 2017.
Timestamps & Transcripts
- 3:47 Nikki Haley (US Ambassador):This resolution is the single largest economic sanctions packageever leveled against the North Korean regime. The price the NorthKorean leadership will pay for its continued nuclear and missiledevelopment will be the loss of 1/3 of its exports and hardcurrency. This is the most stringent set of sanctions on anycountry in a generation.
- 6:30 Matthew John Rycroft (British Ambassadorto the U.N.): Make no mistake: as North Korea’s missilecapabilities advance, so too does their contempt and disregard forthis security council. We must meet this belligerence with clear,unequivocal condemnation and with clear, unequivocal consequences.Today, Mr. President, we have banned North Korean exports of coal,iron ore, lead, and seafood. These are the lifeline exports thatsustain Kim Jong-un’s deadly aspirations. In simple terms, shouldthe North Korean regime continue its reckless pursuit of an illegalmissile program and a deadly nuclear program, they will have vastlyless [unclear]. We’ve also capped the number of foreign workersfrom North Korea. Every year, DPRK sends thousands of ordinaryworkers overseas. They often endure poor conditions and long hours,and their toil serves to provide critical foreign currency forNorth Korean government coffers. This is undoubtedly a form ofmodern slavery, and today we have taken the first step to endingit. The world will now monitor and curtail work authorizations forthese desperate ex-patriots.
- 28:11 Vasily Nebenzya (RussianAmbassador): We share the feeling of neighboring states inthe region. The ballistic missiles, which were launched withoutwarning from North Korea, pose a major risk to marine and airtransit in the region as well as to the lives of ordinarycivilians. We call upon the North Korean government to end thebanned programs and to return to the NPT, nonproliferation regime,and the IAEA oversights as well as to join the Chemical WeaponsConvention. All must understand that progress towardsdenuclearization of the Korean peninsula will be difficult so longas the DPRK perceives a direct threat to its own security, for thatis how the North Koreans view the military buildup in the region,which takes on the forms of frequent, wide-ranging exercises inmaneuvers of the U.S. and allies as they deploy strategic bombers,naval forces, and aircraft carriers to the region. Anotherdestabilizing factor in the region is the scaling up in North Koreaof the THAAD, the U.S. antimissile defense elements. We repeatedlynoted not only this constitutes an irritant, but this alsoundermines the overall military balance in the region and callsinto question the security of neighboring states. We would like tohope that the U.S. secretary of state’s assurances were sincere,that the U.S. is not seeking to dismantle the existing DPRKsituation or to forcibly unite the peninsula or militarilyintervene in the country. However, we are concerned that ourproposed, our paragraph in the draft resolution was not supported.The possible military misadventures by any side are liable to causea disaster for regional and global stability.
Discussion: Senator John McCain on Ukraine, December 19, 2013.
Witness
- Frederick Kempe: President & CEO of the Atlantic Council
Transcripts
- Frederick Kempe: Russian president, VladimirPutin, on Tuesday said he had agreed to loan Ukraine $15 billionand cut the price of critical natural gas supplies. Ukraine’s PrimeMinister Azarov called the deal historic. In Brussels a draft EUdocument, reported this morning by the Wall Street Journal,indicated Ukraine could have gained even more from the West, thoughwith different conditions and perhaps not as plainly put. Had itsigned the EU pact, it might have had $26 billion of loans andgrants from the EU over the next seven years, and if it had alsoagreed to the IMF package. While the Ukraine pivots economicallyeastward, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians continue to pivotwestward, standing together in protest for their continued desireto be part of a Europe, whole and free. And it’s in that contextthat we welcome back a great friend of the Atlantic Council,Senator John McCain, who visited these protestors over the weekendwith Senator Chris Murphy, and continues to play a consistent andleading and principled role in supporting democratic change both inEastern Europe and around the world and thinking through what rolethe United States should be playing in these challengingtimes.
- Sen. John McCain (AZ): If Ukraine’s politicalcrisis persists or deepens, which is a real possibility, we mustsupport creative Ukrainian efforts to resolve it. Senator Murphyand I heard a few such ideas last weekend. From holding earlyelections, as the opposition is now demanding, to the institutionof a technocratic government, with a mandate to make the difficultreforms required for Ukraine’s long-term economic health andsustainable development.
- Sen. John McCain (AZ): And eventually, aUkrainian president, either this one or a future one, will beprepared to accept the fundamental choices facing the country,which is this: while there are real short-term costs to thepolitical and economic reforms required for IMF assistance and EUintegration, and while President Putin will likely add to thesecosts by retaliating against Ukraine’s economy, the long-termbenefits for Ukraine in taking these tough steps are far greaterand almost limitless. This decision cannot be born by one personalone in Ukraine, nor should it be. It must be shared, both therisks and the rewards, by all Ukrainians, especially the oppositionand business elite. It must also be shared by the EU, the IMF, andthe United States.
YouTube: Victoria Nuland callwith the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, February 7,2017.
Clickhere to see the full transcript Transcripts
- Victoria Nuland: What do you think?Geoffrey Pyatt: I think we’re in play. TheKlitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here,especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister. Andyou’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage rightnow, so we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is onthis stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need tomake, I think that’s the next phone call you’ll want to set up, isexactly the one you made to Yats. And I’m glad you sort of put himon the spot on where he fits in this scenario, and I’m very glad hesaid what he said in response. Nuland: Good. So, Idon’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t thinkit’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.Pyatt: Yeah, I mean, I guess. In terms of him notgoing into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do hispolitical homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort ofthe process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate Democratstogether. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys, andI’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all ofthis. I kind of— Nuland: I think Yats is the guywho’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. Whathe needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to betalking to them four times a week, you know? I just think Klitschgoing in—he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk; it’sjust not going to work.
- Victoria Nuland: Can’t remember if I told youthis or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to JeffFeltman this morning, he had a new name for the U.N. guy, RobertSerry. Did I write you that this morning? GeoffreyPyatt: Yeah. Yeah, I saw that. Nuland:Okay. He’s not gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree thatSerry could come in Monday or Tuesday. Pyatt:Okay. Nuland: So that would be great, I think, tohelp glue this thing and have the U.N. help glue it, and, you know,fuck the EU. Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we’vegot to do something to make it stick together because you can bepretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, the Russianswill be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it.
- Geoffrey Pyatt: I think we want to try to getsomebody with an international personality to come out here andhelp to midwife this thing. And then the other issue is some kindof out reach to Yanukovych, but we probably regroup on thattomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.Victoria Nuland: So, on that piece, Geoff, when Iwrote the note, Sullivan’s come back to me VFR, saying, you needBiden, and I said, probably tomorrow for an “atta-boy” and to getthe deets to stick. Pyatt: Okay.Nuland: So, Biden’s willing.Pyatt: Okay, great. Thanks.
Briefing: State Department Daily Briefing, February 6, 2014
Witness
- Jen Psaki: State Department Spokesperson
Timestamps & Transcripts
- 0:19 Male Reporter: Can you saywhether you—if this call is a recording of an authenticconversation between Assistant Secretary Nuland and AmbassadorPyatt? Jen Psaki: Well, I’m not going to confirmor outline details. I understand there are a lot of reports outthere, and there’s a recording out there, but I’m not going toconfirm a private diplomatic conversation.Reporter: So you are not saying that you believethis is a—you think this is not authentic? You think this is a—Psaki: It’s not an accusation I’m making. I’m justnot going to confirm the specifics of it.Reporter: Well, you can’t even say whether therewas a—that this call—you believe that this call, you believe thatthis recording is a recording of a real telephone call?Psaki: I didn’t say it was inauthentic. I think wecan leave it at that. Reporter: Okay, so, you’reallowing the fact that it is authentic. Psaki:Yes. Reporter: “Yes,” okay.Psaki: Do you have a question about it?
- 7:40 Female Reporter: This was twotop U.S. officials that are on the ground, discussing a plan thatthey have to broker a future government and bringing officials fromthe U.N. to kind of seal the deal. This is more than the U.S.trying to make suggestions; this is the U.S. midwifing theprocess
Hearing: Ukraine Anti-Government Protests, Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee, January 15, 2014.
Witnesses
- Zbigniew Brzezinski
- Carter’s National Security Advisor 77-81
- Center for Strategic & International Studies, counselor &Trustee
- Thomas Melia: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Rights &Labor at the Department of State
- Victoria Nuland: Assistant Secretary of State for European andEurasian Affairs
Timestamps & Transcripts
- 32:27 Thomas Melia: Our approach toUkraine complements that of our EU partners and what they sought intheir association agreement, a Ukraine that is more responsive toits citizens, that offers its people opportunities that a growingfree-market economy would provide based on the rule of law.
- 34:19 Victoria Nuland: The point thatwe have made repeatedly to Russia, and that I certainly made on mytrip to Russia between two trips to Ukraine in December, was that aUkraine that is economically stable and prosperous should be nothreat to Russia, that this is not a zero-sum game that we areplaying here, and that, in fact, the same benefits that the EU wasoffering to Ukraine—benefits of association and economicintegration—are also available to a Russia that wants to take thesame market opening and democratic reform steps that Ukraine hasalready taken, 18 pieces of legislation having already beencompleted.
- 58:43 Senator John McCain (AZ): Thisis a country that wants to be European. They don’t want to beRussian. That’s what this is all about.
- 59:52 Senator John McCain (AZ): I’msomewhat taken aback by your, “well, it’s sort of up to theUkrainian people.” We ought to be assisting morally the Ukrainianpeople for seeking what we want everybody on this earth to have,and so it’s not just up to the Ukrainian people. They cry out forour assistance.
Panel: Internet and Democracy, Aspen Ideas Festival, June 26,2017.
Witnesses
- Ory Rinat: White House Interim Chief Digital Officer
- Farhad Majoo: New York Times Correspondent
Transcripts
- Ory Rinat: What drives social engagement? Whatdrives Internet engagement? It’s shares. And that’s not asocial-media thing; that’s back to forwarding chain emails. It’swhen people share, that’s the source of engagement. And what drivespeople to share? It’s anger. It’s sadness. It’s inspiration. It’sreally rare; it happens, but it’s rare that somebody says, wow, Ijust read an objective, fascinating piece that represents bothsides; let me share it on Facebook. That’s not what people share.And so what happens is we’ve incentivized, as a society,sensationalism in journalism. I was giving an example earlier:during the transition, there was an article in a publication thatshould not be named that said something along the lines of, Trumptransition website lifts passages from nonprofit group. Okay.Doesn’t sound that great. Couple of paragraphs in, they mentionthat the website actually sourced and cited the nonprofit. Coupleof paragraphs later, they quote the CO of the nonprofit saying itwas okay. Couple of paragraphs later, they quote a lawyer sayingeven if it wasn’t okay, even if they didn’t have permission, andeven if they didn’t cite it, it was probably still legal. But thatheadline was so sensationalized, and people want to click onsomething that makes them angry, and so everybody just needs totake a breath, and it’s not the Internet’s fault. FarhadManjoo: Well, it’s the Internet ad model’s fault, right?It’s the fact that those sites—Facebook, every news site you canthink of—is getting paid based on clicks. So is sort of thefundamental fix here some other business model for online news andeverything else? Ory Rinat: Sure, I just can’tthink of one. Farhad Manjoo: Right.
Panel: U.S. Global Leadership, The Aspen Institute, August 4,2017.
Witnesses
- Nick Burns: Former Under Secretary of State for PoliticalAffairs (Bush)
- Condoleezza Rice: Former National Security Advisor (Bush)
- Tom Donilon: Former National Security Advisor (Obama)
- Stephen Hadley: Former National Security Advisor (Bush)
- Susan Rice: National Security Advisor
Timestamps & Transcripts
- 9:00 Condoleezza Rice: The liberalorder was born, it was an idea, designed after World War II, whenpeople looked out at the world that they had inherited after WorldWar I and said, let’s not do that again. And it had two importantelements, and it had one important fact. One element was theyreally believed that the international economy did not have to be azero-sum game. It could be competitive, but it could be a growingeconomy and a positive-sum game, so my gains were not your losses,and that’s why they wanted to have free trade, and they wanted tohave a comparative advantage among countries. And as you said, theyset up institutions to do it, an International Monetary Fund andexchange rates, a World Bank eventually starting as a European Bankof Reconstruction and Development, which would rebuild economiesand actually would become a source of capital for countries comingout of colonialism. And in some ways the most remarkable one, thegeneral agreement on tariffs and trade, which was not a set oftrade agreements but rules of the road to level the playing fieldso that the international economy could grow. So it was by its verynature supposed to get us away from conflict in the internationalsystem. They hated the fact that there’d been beggar-thy-neighbortrading policies and competition over resources. It was violent. Sothey weren’t going to do that again. Then, the important fact: theywere going to try to create the democratic peace where they could,so they rebuilt Germany as a democracy, Japan as a democracy, andit was all going to be protected by American military power. And sothat was the liberal order.
- 12:00 Condoleezza Rice: It is beingchallenged by Russia because Russia unfortunately doesn’t reallyhave a foot in the economic side and, therefore, uses its militarypower for its respect. But it’s also being challenged by the fourhorsemen of the Apocalypse—populism, nativism, isolationism, andprotectionism—and they tend to run together. And so one of thequestions that we ought to be asking is not just the challenge tothe liberal order from transnational terrorism or cyber warfare orfrom big powers like Russia and China but how do we deal with thefact that it does seem that there are those who believe that theywere left behind by the global order, and they’re fighting back.They found people who will give them an answer as to why theydidn’t succeed. Populists always have an answer: it’s the other—theChinese; the illegal immigrants; if you’re from the Left, the bigbanks. And, oh, by the way, the other this time around is not justtaking your jobs; the other is dangerous—so refugees andimmigrants—and so I think the challenge is this time not just onethat we foreign-policy people can understand but one that has to gointernally to these societies and see what’s happening. That’s whyI’m glad for the Aspen Strategy Group, that we are having thiswonderful session that _____(01:30) will help to lead, because thisis a really big challenge from the inside and from the out. And,yes, I’m worried that the liberal order might not survive it.
- 31:00 Condoleezza Rice: Leadingdifferently obviously means finding a role for others—that’s veryimportant—but it also means—and I know we can’t retire from thisrole, but there is a weariness among the American people, and wecan’t ignore it. We can’t as foreign-policy people simply say,look, we’ve had to get back there and lead. We have to say, we’regoing to lead because it’s in our interests, it’s with our values,and our allies have to appreciate it, right? And they have to be apart of it. That’s my point. I think we really haven’t gotten fromthe allies. What we get mostly from the allies is criticism for notleading, because the only thing the world hates more thanunilateral American leadership is no American leadership, but we doneed our allies to step up, and some of them have. On Minsk, forinstance, the Germans stepped up to try and settle the Ukrainiancircumstances. But let’s not underestimate outside offoreign-policy leads, the degree to which the American people areasking questions about how much more we can do. UnknownSpeaker: Well, this is a good transition point to Russia.Let me just frame it this way: since Putin’s invasion andannexation of Crimea, 20 of the 28 allies have raised their defensespending, and they feel the threat. And I would even say right now,Merkel is leading NATO, not so much the United States; she’sleading NATO on this. So, Condi, you studied the Russians and theSoviets your life; we’ve got a dilemma here. Putin attacked ourelection and tried to discredit our democracy. We know he did that.Putin annexed Crimea. He still has troops in the Donbass andEastern Ukraine, dividing that country. He has been a malevolentforce in Syria. So, what’s the strategy for President Trump here?How does he respond to this? And we saw this extraordinarysituation where the president was essentially repudiated by theRepublicans in Congress on this big vote in the Senate and House tosanction Russia. If you were to give advice to him, what would itbe? Not to put you on the spot too much. Rice:Well, thanks. Well, the first advice I would give is, be sure youknow who Vladimir Putin is, right? And Vladimir Putin is someonewho likes to humiliate, someone who likes to dominate, and someonewho essentially understands power. And so don’t go into a room withVladimir Putin unless you are in a pretty powerful position, andthat means when you go to talk to Vladimir Putin, first let’scontinue the policy that the Obama administration began, maybe evenaccelerate the policy of putting forces, at least on a rotatingbasis but possibly on a permanent basis, in places like Poland andthe Baltic states so that you say to him, this far and no further.Secondly, I like raising the defense budget as a signal to theRussians. Third, I think you have to say to the Russians, we knowyou did it on the electoral process; we will, at a time of ourchoosing, by means of our choosing, we will deal with it, but wehave confidence in our electoral system, so don’t think that you’reundermining American confidence by what you’re doing, because hefeeds on the sense that he’s succeeding in undermining ourconfidence. And the final thing I’d say to him is, stop flying yourplanes so close to our ships and aircraft; somebody’s going to getshot down, because once you’ve established the kind of ground ruleswith Vladimir Putin, now you can talk about possible areas ofcooperation. By the way, there’s one other thing I’d do: I’d armthe Ukrainians. I think that you have got to raise the cost to theRussians of what they’re doing in Ukraine, and it’s not on thefront pages anymore, but in Eastern Ukraine, people are dying everyday because of those little Russian green men, the Russianseparatists, who, with Russian military training and Russianmilitary intelligence and Russian military capability, are making amess of Eastern Ukraine and making it impossible for Kiev to governthe country. And so I think it’s time to arm them.
- 33:30 Nick Burns: I think PresidentObama actually put in place a lot of what Condi’s saying. Is therebipartisan agreement on this tough policy? SusanRice: I think there’s certainly bipartisan agreement onthe steps that Condi described that we characterized as theEuropean Response Initiative, where we got NATO with our leadershipto put in those four countries, the three Baltics, plus Poland, acontinuous, rotating, augmented presence and _____(00:26) deployednot only personnel but equipment, and we have reversed the trend ofthe downsizing of our presence in Europe, and that’s vitallyimportant.
- 36:00 Tom Donilon: It’s important torecognize some of the fundamentals here, right, which is that weare in an actively hostile posture with the Russians right now. Andit’s not just in Europe; it’s in Syria, it’s in Afghanistan, it’sin Syria, and it was in our own elections, and it’ll be in theEuropean elections going through the next year as well, and it’llprobably be in our elections 2018 and 2020 unless we act to preventit. So, we’re in, I think, in an actively hostile posture with theRussians, coming from their side.
- 40:00 Stephen Hadley: We’re puttingbattalions—we, NATO—putting battalions in the three Baltic statesand in Poland and in Bucharest. Battalions are 1200 people, 1500people. Russia is going to have an exercise in Belarus thatnewspaper reports suggest maybe up to 100,000 people and 8,000tanks—I think I’ve got that number right— UnknownSpeaker: This month. Hadley: —more tanksthan Germany, France, and U.K. have combined. And we have to becareful that we don’t get in this very confrontational, rhetoricalposition with Russia and not have the resources to back it up.
- 58:00 Condoleezza Rice: Democracypromotion—democracy support, I like to call it—is not just themorally right thing to do, but, actually, democracies don’t fighteach other. They don’t send their 10-year-olds as child soldiers.They don’t traffic their women into the sex trade. They don’tattack their neighbors. They don’t harbor terrorists. And sodemocracies are kind of good for the world, and so when you talkabout American interests and you say you’re not sure that we oughtto promote democracy, I’m not sure you’ve got a clear concept, or aclear grasp, on what constitutes American interests.
Speech: Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton National SecurityAddress, Council of Foreign Relations, November 19, 2015.
Transcript
- Hillary Clinton: So we need to movesimultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war thatpaves the way for a new government with new leadership and toencourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well. To support them, weshould immediately deploy the special operations force PresidentObama has already authorized and be prepared to deploy more as moreSyrians get into the fight, and we should retool and ramp up ourefforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units. Ourincreased support should go hand in hand with increased supportfrom our Arab and European partners, including Special Forces whocan contribute to the fight on the ground. We should also work withthe coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that willstop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from theair.
Hearing: U.S. Policy and Russian Involvement in Syria, House ForeignAffairs Committee, November 4, 2015.
Witnesses
- Anne W. Patterson: Assistant Secretary Department of State,Near Eastern Affairs
Transcript
- Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Who are we talkingabout when we’re speaking about moderate opposition, and do they,in fact, include elements of al-Qaeda and al-Nusra and other moreextremist groups? Anne Patterson: Well, let metake the civilian moderate opposition, too, and that’s theassistance figure that you’re referring to, and that is groupswithin Syria and groups that live in Turkey and Lebanon and otherplaces; and what that project is designed to do is to keep thesepeople, not only alive physically, but also keep them viable for afuture Syria, because we have managed to, even areas under controlof ISIL—I won’t mention them—but we have managed to provide moneyto city councils, to health clinics, to teachers and policemen sothese people can still provide public services and form the basisfor a new Syria. So that’s—a good portion of that money goes intoefforts like that. There’s also the opposition on the ground, and Ithink they’ve sort of gotten a bum rap in this hearing because Ithink they are more extensive than it’s generally recognized,particularly in the south, and they, yes, of course, in the north,some of these individuals have affiliated with Nusra because therewas nowhere else to go.
- Anne Patterson: Moscow has cynically tried toclaim that its strikes are focused on terrorists, but so fareighty-five to ninety percent of Syrian strikes have hit themoderate Syrian opposition, and they have killed civilians in theprocess. Despite our urging, Moscow has yet to stop the Assadregime’s horrific practice of barrel bombing the Syrian people, sowe know that Russia’s primary intent is to preserve theregime.
Music Presented in This Episode
- Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found onMusic Alley by mevio)
Cover Art
Design by OnlyChild Imaginations