 So good morning. Good afternoon, depending on where you are. My name is Bill Taylor. I'm one of the vice presidents here at the United States Institute of Peace, and I'm very glad to welcome you to this discussion of the war in Ukraine. Today, we have a great panel for you that's looking forward. I'm looking forward to hearing them. I'm looking forward to hearing your questions and comments. The Institute of Peace has been working on this issue for some time. The Institute of Peace, we seek nonviolent resolution of violent conflict, and there's a violent conflict going on in Ukraine. So this is an appropriate topic for the Institute of Peace to focus on. The Institute of Peace works in Washington, making recommendations to the Congress and to the administration, but we also work in the field. And we've got people in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Nigeria, in Tunisia, in Burma, Pakistan, Colombia, and we're working in Ukraine. Russia grants Ukraine first in Crimea, then in Donbas, is violent conflict. So this is, again, this is what the Institute of Peace is designed to focus on and try to help resolve. Today, we're going to focus on Donbas, and we're not forgetting about Crimea. We'll come back to that, but we're going to focus on Donbas. We've been working this issue for several years. We've done a couple of track two dialogues with senior Ukrainians and senior Russians, senior Americans. We've come up with some ideas and suggestions about how to resolve this conflict in Donbas. We held a conference here two years ago with experts from around the world, including leading Ukrainians. Minister Avakov joined us in person. We could do things in person at that time. Now we're on this medium. We've got some active dialogues, people-to-people dialogues that the Institute of Peace is sponsoring, near the line of contact with people on both sides of the line. Today, we're going to talk about two questions. First, do the circumstances in the world today allow us to look for new opportunities to resolve this conflict in Donbas? The new circumstances are the ceasefire is holding. There's been a ceasefire in Ukraine for what, Ambassador, three months? Well, three months. And counting. The ceasefire continues. European sanctions are holding. People might not have predicted that a couple of years ago, but the Europeans have been strong on sanctions. The U.S., of course, sticks with our sanctions and the deputy secretary of state, Steve Began, is engaged in this issue. He and George Kent, whom we will hear from a little bit later on today, were in the region and were in Kiev and in Moscow. And having the conversation. So the U.S. is engaged. There's turmoil in Eurasia. There's Habarovs. There's Belarus. There's Kyrgyzstan. Navalny was poisoned. Armenia, Azerbaijan. There's a lot going on there that people, decision-makers, have to focus on. So maybe these new circumstances suggest an opportunity, present an opportunity that we should take advantage of. And if so, the second question is, if the time is right, what are the solutions? How could we? How can we? What could we think about? What new ideas are there? What new proposals? What new formats? What new ideas are there to solve this problem? So those are the two questions that we want to raise here today. So I'm about to conclude, and I'm going to turn the floor, the mic, the Zoom call over to the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States. Ambassador Yelchenko will give introductory remarks. He will then introduce the deputy prime minister of Ukraine who has been deeply involved, principally involved in these issues. And deputy prime minister Reznikov will join us for this conversation. After the deputy prime minister's remarks, Don Jensen, who you see on the call, is our Russia director here at the Institute of Peace. And Don will introduce Arisia Luzhevich, which I'm very pleased to have from Chatham House. Arisia, thank you very much for being here. And as we can see on the screen, George Kent had planned to be here. He was called at the last minute to another meeting for George. I mean, as people know, George Kent has responsibility not just for Ukraine, his most important responsibility, let's just say, but also for Belarus, also for Armenia and Azerbaijan. So George has a lot going on, but he will be back. And those of us on the screen right now, we can see that George is planning to be here. He'll be late. So after Arisia makes comments on, hopefully on these two topics, I will try to summarize what I have heard from George, but also from Deputy Secretary Steve Began, and try to present in George's absence until George arrives, the US position, which will set the stage for those conversations. George will come back and he will either correct me or elaborate or whatever, but he'll take questions and Don will be sure to integrate him in. Don will then, Don Jensen will then moderate a discussion among all the people on this screen, as well as you, the participants. And your participation is very important to us. We would like to get not only your questions, we want questions. But also, many of you, some of you will have an idea about how to solve this conflict to give to the Deputy Prime Minister, to give to the Ambassador, to give to George Kent. We would love to get those comments. This is a good opportunity to put out new ideas. Again, if the time is right, then this is the time for new ideas. Those questions and those comments, what you can do in the audience is type them out. There's a question box in the bottom of the screen that you're now on. If you've gotten this far, you can see the screen and you can see the button where you can type in your questions and you can type them in in English, type them in in Ukrainian. If you can type them in in Russian, and we will send them on to Don, who will then pose them to one of the speakers. So please identify yourself and your affiliation as you as you type in your questions. With that, Ambassador Yachenko, I am very pleased to turn it over to you for introductory comments. So Ambassador. Thank you very much, Bill. Good morning, everyone. I would like, first of all, to welcome all of you at this virtual event organized by our good friends and partners from the US Institute of Peace. This is a discussion that advocates and promotes peace as one of the fundamental principles for the international community. The topics of today's discussion cannot be chosen better, as we all are strongly united by the intent of achieving peace. As Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote, it is not enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. It isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it. Almost seven years ago, the war in Ukrainian Donbass was something unimaginable. Unfortunately, now it is real, very real, and it is not just the war that matters to Ukraine. It is closer to everyone else than anyone can think. Let me just give you a few numbers. 7% of Ukraine's territory remain illegally occupied by Russia. Over 14,000 people have been killed. Over 27,000 wounded and almost 2 million have been forced to flee their homes in Crimea and Donbass and became internally displaced persons or refugees. The occupation and attempted annexation of Ukraine's Crimea by the Russian Federation and its role in provoking, fanning up and sustaining armed conflict in Ukraine's Donbass region is one of the most vivid examples of unscrupulous attempts to change and reshape the international system to one's own liking. With full and blatant disregard for long-settled, preemptory norms of international law, we must resolutely resist this kind of change because it destabilizes the international system and recklessly pushes the world closer to the brink of global war. Over all these years, we have proved that Ukraine really strives for peace. We managed to unblock the dialogue with assumed meetings of the leaders of the Normandy 4 countries. Significant progress has been made in mutual release of detainees. Another attempt over comprehensive ceasefire on July 27th faces numerous attempts by the Russian-led forces to disrupt it. All our efforts being derailed by Russia, which continues to supply heavy weapons and ammunition across our border to increase its military capabilities along the border with Ukraine and to militarize Crimea. We are grateful to our international partners for their assistance and support along the way, especially the United States of America, our long-standing strategic partner. As long as the war in Ukraine continues, a war in the heart of Europe, the whole world will feel the pain and suffering of civilians. Events like today's discussion help us to join our efforts and see how we can best address the challenges we face. So I would like to once again thank the organizers for putting it together. And now it is my pleasure and honor to introduce Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, Minister for Temporarily Occupied Territories of Ukraine and IDPs, Mr. Oleg Siresnikov, a prominent Ukrainian lawyer who took upon an important task of leading and guiding the ministry, and who can give you the firsthand information about current situation in Donbass and our views on moving forward. I thank you. The floor is yours, Mr. Siresnikov. He needs to activate his mic. I don't hear him. Okay, good. My greetings to you. Good morning or good evening wherever you are. I am thankful for inviting me to address this esteemed audience. And there are two issues today on our agenda as you proposed is number one, whether this is a good time to settlement and of the conflict, and second, how this possible settlement may look like. To give a short answer, I believe that in my persuasion, I think there is a corridor of opportunities today, and this moment gives us a chance to finish this hybrid war that started back in 2014 with Russia's aggression by occupying the Crimea and Sevastopol, and then it evolved into a hot phase in part of Donbass. I'm sure you know that a bigger part of Donbass, Donetsk and Luhansk regions were occupied, but owing to efforts of the Russian military, anti-terrorist operation, were de-occupied, and a number of cities such as Slavyansk and others are now back under Ukrainian constitutional rule. But there is some part of Donetsk and Luhansk regions which are still occupied. I cannot tell you how this settlement can look, but I'm sure I know how it cannot look like. There are certain red lines that we will never cross, and this is something that the public understands. The government, most of this Verkhovna Rada, so I think there is a social consensus here. The red lines are, we cannot possibly make any changes to the constitution of Ukraine, no matter how much this is brought up by propaganda among the Kremlin. Attempts to federalize the country is unacceptable. We will not take any risks that will threaten Ukraine's territory in integrity. That is obvious. At this time, conducting a political settlement via local elections in the occupied territories is impossible without removal of border control of the border between Ukraine and Russia. The Minsk agreement says something different. They say that border control has to be removed the day after the elections. But today all the expert conclusions, as we study any military conflicts around the world, they say that if the government has no control of its borders, that means the conflict will not be resolved. I recently returned from Croatia where I studied the experience of the Croatian conflict settlement 25 years ago and some pro-Russian media accused me of studying Croatian cleansing experience. In reality, we started their peaceful efforts experience and we made some parallels with Ukraine and we learned that we have to study Croatian experience, but it will be the Ukrainian model of peaceful reintegration of provisionally occupied territories. Each of us has their own history. There are some similarities, but there are some significant differences as well. About Croatian experience, you can learn more from the interviews I'm preparing right now. We have borrowed some of their ideas and experience. Also another little comment on what's happening here. In 2014 the Minsk agreements were signed as a political diplomatic arrangement but not an international law item that would have been approved by the government or the parliament. And then there were situations debauched with potential loss of lives of Ukrainian soldiers and we were forced to make those arrangements. But time has evolved and now Minsk agreements have to be modernized. We are not the only ones to say this. Mrs Merkel was saying the same in her speech in Paris saying that Minsk agreements are not carved in stone. And at this time this is the legacy we're working with and we recognize that Normandy format must be the main format at the level of international leaders in political practice. So the Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses this. We have a Minsk format for the trilateral contact consulting group. We were able to complete separation of forces in three towns. We were able to accomplish a non-regime of ceasefire along the separation line. There are some shots but not a single life or wounded soldiers were lost. And we are preparing to open two new checkpoints in Zalote that was discussed in Paris. We have accomplished some exchanges of detained persons. We have identified four other towns for separation of forces. And we have made advances in regarding plans for humanitarian demining. But further progress is now blocked by current position of the Russian Federation and their proxies who represent the occupation regimes. In fact they represent the Russian Federation citizens. We have informed the world they are distributing. They have Russian citizenship so we perceive them as Russian representatives. Ukraine does not have to wait for goodwill in the Kremlin. We have to continue in our own format and building our landscape and waiting for this moment. When in that corridor of opportunity there may come the right moment for a possible settlement. We understand that for pragmatic Russians they are not interested in keeping Donbass under control for a long time. Especially with the current economic changes in the world linked to the pandemic and oil prices. We understand that the developments around the Russian Federation including Belarus, including the more acute conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. We understand that violent conflicts do not provide a solution. And by the way in Karabakh the search of possible settlement was actually being done in Minsk 30 years ago with OSE mediation. And we can see that in 30 years they were not able to accomplish a good result. And now Azerbaijan decided to occupy territories in the military format. But we maintain our preference for the format of negotiations that we have been using. It's a virtual Minsk format. We haven't been meeting in Minsk. We do video conferences like we are talking with you now. And participants of the consultation see a Ukrainian banner behind me and the bed drop with our logo of the ministry. And Mr. Kravchuk our former first president was sitting here and talking to them just yesterday. Well I'm talking about change of landscape. I should also mention what depends on us. Several things. We realize that only a strong army is an ally of Ukraine that will make our northern neighbor recognize it. So we have to continue building up our Ukrainian military as a partner of the government. And we with the help of our national partners to show our strength. And you know there was military training recently and when U.S. and British air military planes flew over Kiev in the deeper. That was a strong demonstration that we have those partners and allies. Second is economic transformation. We have a goal for the ministry that I'm leading. We are preparing a project of economic rebuilding of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces that are under under Ukraine's control. We are preparing a concept of economic development that will provide them with the status of priority development territories. Some may call them free economic zones or offshore zones but I'm using the legal term territories of priority development. That's what our laws will provide. So this includes several ideas. First we understand that without financial support of civilized the civilized world we will not be able to bring back to life those territories devastated by the war. Those communities which have been occupied and there'll be more territories to that we will be occupied. We need to help them restore their infrastructure improve the quality of life and capability of the communities. We understand that Ukraine's government budget does not have enough resources for that. Various estimates suggest that the losses were very big and we cannot count on donor support or credit support. That will not provide sufficient resources. So we want to create proper legal preconditions so investors would be able to come and bring their money. There are three things that an investor wants to see. One is coverage of political and military risks. Second is the question of what we call rule of law, fair justice. And third is clear and understandable rules. Then an investor will feel comfortable in that environment. If you add to this certain motivations of certain tax burdens and customs duties and better conditions for withdrawal of earned capital. Those will be good incentives. Then there are three more things to be addressed. That's infrastructure, labor market and sales markets. And so we have been building more roads in those territories than they ever had in 25 years. And we are now looking at a project of collaboration with local governments for renewal of railroad communication. We are discussing how to plug in electricity supply to the destroyed territories. Number two, labor market. There is 2.5 million residents populating those territories now. Many of them, as Mr. Ambassador mentioned, about 1.5 million displaced persons and they are ready to come back. We also understand that across the border there is the European community. We have the appropriate agreements with the European Union which allows Ukraine to be a participant to all the trade operations. But the recent developments with the pandemic when the whole world was trying to buy everything in China from protective masks to artificial ventilation devices. We understand that this creates challenges. It's much better for the European Union to have production of those products closer next door. And so if you do place them in Ukraine in Donetsk, Luhansk and Kherson provinces would be much better. I think that even as you produce a certain experience for the United States, this could also be of interest if we produce some products for the United States and supply them there. Those certain political and economic risks could be covered with creation of insurance funds with joint resources. We are also working on the concept of transition period which includes the concept of transitional justice. This is something very important and it is always discussed by the United Nations and others. And when the UN Secretary General was speaking about certain principles of transitional justice, this includes the right for justice, the right for protection, the right for truth. And we are working on that and we hope that our parliament will soon discuss a draft law that will have definitions of what transition period is and what kind of enemies they can be envisaged and who will have to be taken to justice. But this transition justice is first and foremost will define that the people who are currently present in occupied territories are essentially hostages and they shouldn't be afraid but they should just keep patience. And despite their so-called Stockholm syndrome, they need to know that the culprits will be held responsible and punished when their cases are examined. Another block of issues is improvement of international support and effective support because Ukraine alone at this time will not be able to find a way out of this situation. By the way, the example of Croatia that we looked at during their peaceful reintegration, we could see that there were two basic feelings that dominate in the society. One is fear, the other is distrust. Those two emotions really are an obstacle to successful reintegration and peaceful development. Then there has to be some third actor who can help, who gets more trust, who will be able to reduce the fear, the degree of fear. So I think that international participation, the UN mandate that allowed to create a transitional administration that was operating in those territories of Northern Slovenia and other lands along the Danube river, which in the course of a year and a half, that's how long the transition period lasted and this administration allowed to renew the operations of local communities, local governments, and organize running water supplies and solid waste removal and in the end they held elections for local governments and they came back, went back to normal governance operations. So we need to work on that, we understand we need alliances, we certainly count on US strategic partnership in this because it's not only, all those bodies are not only territorially located there, but we also understand that mentally there's a lot of closeness, US, Canada, Croatia, Poland, Lithuania, we believe that we have a lot, I think it's about diaspora. So I think we can get all that support, there is a Ukrainian saying, if we join together it's easier to even beat our dad, so we must be together. And then of course information work is important, this hybrid war has information war as a component. So today the opportunity to deliver a Ukrainian signal is limited but at the same time Kremlin counter propaganda reaches Russia's efforts to send its information reaches Ukraine as well. So we need help here and I am actually asking, making an appeal for help to deliver even technologically our radio and TV signal to the adjoining territories and temporarily occupied territories, we need to get more capacity to send our messages there. So our new, our message today is that greater international pressure on the occupying country will allow to avoid freezing of this conflict, Nagorno-Karabakh shows us that frozen conflict may explode one day. And I think there are such opportunities we just need to make efforts together, we'll be very thankful for the support for Ukraine, both along the lines of sanctions as well as other political and diplomatic pressures. I want to conclude with one just simple example, recently our government adopted sectoral sanctions against Nicaragua, why? Because Nicaragua, by ignoring Russia, Ukraine's sovereignty, they opened a consulate office in Crimea and they appointed an individual who had been sentenced by Ukrainian court. As that consul that's demonstrative disrespect of Ukraine's statehood and so the government adopted that decision, the president is going to approve it as well as the parliament. So this is a signal that you cannot act like this and disrespect another country's sovereignty. I think this will be a significant demonstration to the world who is the aggressor and who needs help. I will not take more of your time. I'm ready to answer any question. You're welcome. Please ask. Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your co-chair remarks. I'd like to turn now to Mr. Sevich, who is Mr. Sevich is the senior fellow and director of the Ukraine forum at Chatham House in London. Mr. Sevich, over to you. Thank you very much. Thanks for hosting and giving an opportunity to discuss what could be done about the conflict that is gripping Ukraine for now seven years. And I think it's important for us to understand the origins of the conflict if we are trying to find the solutions for today. And from my perspective, it's the legacy of still of the collapse of the Soviet Union, where in a way, Russian logic, current Kremlin regime logic is to preserve control of the periphery. And in particularly to maintain its pathway also as a European power, that's where Ukraine comes into play. And that's why Ukraine is so important for current Kremlin regime. So we have quite an entrenched position on the side of the President Putin and Russia, why Ukraine matters so much. So in a way, what we see in Donbass and with the annexation of Crimea, yes, it's the annexation of the territory, but it's also about the future modalities of Ukrainian statehood. Because in a way, Russia wants to deny that Ukraine can be a viable independent state. And what it's trying to achieve in the as an end game is Ukraine's limited sovereignty. And it's unfortunate that the Minsk agreements are used by Russia that in a way denies even its engagement in the conflict. For this matter, politically Minsk agreements are, you know, quite controversial inside Ukraine. Few Ukrainians see the outcomes of Minsk agreements, and it's being used all the time to polarize and devise society. In the elections that Russia was so much pushing to organize on the occupied territories of Donbass is simply there to legalize their proxies. Those Russian citizens that Vice Prime Minister was talking about that are right now running these territories. Of course, it's costly for Russia, you know, there's an estimate that they spend around five billion to just maintained on Basin around to Crimea, you know, it's not a cheap. Aventure for them, but I think they are prepared to pay the price exactly to create pressure on the rest of Ukrainian politics using this conflict. So unless the West is prepared to abandon Ukraine or Ukraine is prepared to surrender its independence, it will be a difficult relationship, both for Ukraine with Russia and for the West with Russia. And I think this is something fundamentally we all have to prepare. So answering to the question whether there's really a new opening that we could use right now. The answer is, no, there's not such a new opportunity that is right, but it does not mean that we shouldn't prepare for it in the future. And in this context, I think for Ukraine, what should be a viable strategy jointly with its partners. It's interesting that there's a new national security strategy that was just adopted by by Kiev recently looking ahead for the next five years. And this document talks about deterrence. It talks about resilience and it talks about cooperation with Western partners. I mean, on the deterrence side, I will focus last but just mentioned because I'm joining you from London that we had a quite successful state visit of President Zelensky to the United Kingdom, a strategic operation agreement bilaterally with the United Kingdom that includes five 1.5 billion loan to produce new missile carrier naval vessels that will create additional deterrence in the Black Sea. And that is an important effect. But I would like to focus a bit more on resilience, something that I think Ukrainians with its Western partners should try to really strengthen in Ukraine. I mean, we all live in times of turbulence. There's instability, complexity, uncertainty, and this seems like a feature that is so important for all of our societies and it's so important for peace. We've been looking at this idea of resilience in the region and specifically at what are the vulnerabilities that make Ukrainian society vulnerable to Russian negative influence. And of course, number one, if we look at the situation, it's an armed conflict. Number two, it's corruption. It's internal domestic system that enables a lot of these negative influences to perpetrate. And it's also a nature of Ukrainian politics. But because we are talking about conflict, I would like to say that, as I said, it's not just about those occupied territories and people in the contact line. And 21% of Ukrainians had negative experience due to conflict. It's a lot of people. There's increased violence, the circulation of firearms, the environmental threats that are coming from the region. And conflict is polarizing societies. This is that is something very dangerous for democracy is I'm sure, you know, in the United States how dangerous polarizations could be how it tears the fabric of the society and actually damages possibility for consensus and compromise that is so much needed for democracy. So in Ukraine, also if you look at the society and you if you ask a question is society right for resolution. In fact, Ukrainian society is quite, you know, is quite unsure about what is the West Bay. Of course, we Ukrainians want to finish the war, but they find it difficult to answer what is the best way, you know, to stop this war. Is it the continue the current blockade is it to provide autonomous status is it to separate on bars. Is it to maintain the status quo. So Ukraine still has to do a lot internally inside of its society to have a conversation about the future of Donbass and the future of Crimea. As I said, conflict creates inside Ukraine quite strong feeling of heightened insecurity. I mean, on top of that you have COVID you have economic difficulties you have quite strong migration, you know, to find jobs everywhere. So I think that society is quite anxious. But I think also on the positive side, why resilience is a good answer for Ukraine and the current leadership in Kiev and civil society should carefully look how to deploy this framework is because this is our customs to living in instability. Ukrainians has been through various and many traumas, and they have overcome. They have persevered. In most recent history Chernobyl, you go back Afghan war you go back, you know, a lot of more repressions, and Ukraine still stands. This is what Putin what comes to a surprise to Putin. This is Ukraine's capacity to persevere and Western unity. So I do think that not to take more time to have more discussion, what could be the three pillars of resilience in Ukraine. I'm pleased that the Vice Prime Minister mentioned more human focused efforts within the the occupied territories of Donbass and reaching out to those Ukrainians who are right now outside of Ukraine's nationhood. I think it's also Ukraine's national security strategy is very human focused, and it's a positive sign. I think we live in a societies and Ukraine is trying to show that it's a real humanistic society based on respect for human rights and respect for rule of law. And this is where Ukrainians will feel pride and ownership of its of the country. So these three pillars the way we see them and we have quite extensive report that you can look at Shatom house website on Ukraine's resilience. Number one Ukraine needs to revamp its institutions. And that means to complete the decentralization process because it came as a legacy of very centralized Soviet state, and to really fix governance that will deliver effective services. Right now Ukraine almost twice lags behind Poland in the effectiveness of its governance and modern day effective state services are difficult. As I said there is complexity there's insecurity crisis is of all kinds. But I think that together with the teams of local communities, because Ukraine is quite horizontal the trust is spreading more horizontally rather than vertically to Kiev. This team of teams of strong Ukrainian communities could build something that can withstand these negative influences of Russian Federation that we are talking about. And mostly what it means giving a stake for citizens in decision making, because this engagement of citizens for communities is dangerous. It's not just a matter of civil society development as we used to look at it. It's in Ukrainian case a matter of national security. And it's very patchy because if you look at Uzhorot, Mikolayev, Severodonets, only 13 people say that they are pleased with the way that they engage with their communities. It's very low. In Ivano-Frankivsk, where it's one of the highest, it's only 29%. So I think this is one of the pillars where citizens could really have a stake in Ukrainian governance. Number two, it's internal cohesion, social cohesion. Why there's so much anxiety about the integration of Donbass? Because a lot of people in center and west of Ukraine fear that this may hijack the future of European integration for Ukraine. And what is important is to look at the IDPs and veterans. It's a great opportunity that Vice Prime Minister was talking about creating jobs, about supporting families, about mental health. Because as I said, millions of people are affected by conflict trauma, but also building links, transport links, but also human links, exchanges, school exchanges. I mean, COVID makes all of this difficult, but we could use this time to prepare for what will come. And the third pillar is cognitive resilience and media. Information is a fuel for democracy. If citizens are not given good quality information to judge policies, how is society going to work democratically? We all know it's impossible. So I think nurturing the public information sources, investing in media, but not only the central level, but also at the regional community level. Because as I said, when Ukraine decentralizes, these communities get more powers financially, decision making. And it's important that these communities share the same values, that they share the same vision for Ukraine, the same reform agenda, so that the country can move in one step rather than being pulled in different directions. So just to conclude, I would like to say that I think we cannot expect much from Putin to step back and allow Ukraine to have peace on Ukrainian terms, observing all those red lines that Vice Prime Minister mentioned. It would be great, but it's a bit of a utopian world. In the real world, I think Ukraine has to prepare to stay strong with its allies, because Russia wanted to damage and defeat Ukraine, but it didn't. Western sanctions so far also didn't defeat Russia. There are different pressures, but the struggle goes on. And I think Ukraine is so important, not just for the millions of Ukrainians living at home, but also for millions of Belarusians right now, who are fighting for the future that they want, that will be free and democratic and successful Ukraine. Is that inspiration that we need in the region for these countries and for worldwide democracy? So I will stop here and happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much. Arisha, thank you so much for your provocative comments and interesting comments. I'm turning it over now to Ambassador Taylor. Thank you, Arisha. Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister. Thank you very much for being here. I'm still watching George Kent's chair and it looks like he or at least his little box and he's not yet with us. So I'm going to try just very briefly to summarize some of the things that I've heard George say, but also that the Deputy Secretary of State, Steve Began, said last night. I was in touch with him last night. He's in Bangladesh, Deputy Prime Minister, otherwise he would love to have the conversation with you. He pointed out, Secretary Began pointed out to me last night that the Deputy Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Resnikov has done an outstanding job. And he said that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Zelensky administration's efforts have produced the most progress in six years, according to Steve Began. He said that the strong leadership of the Ukrainian government engaging directly with Russia makes it that much easier for the U.S. to play an important supporting role. And he wanted to emphasize that. The United States needs to be present, he said, but the Ukrainians have to lead the way to a solution. Many of us heard the Deputy Secretary at the Yes conference where he made a couple of related points. And again, if George Kent joins us, he can elaborate. Steve Began said that the sequence on how to solve Donbass or how to solve the problem in Ukraine more broadly is Donbass first and then Crimea. He was focused first on Donbass and then Crimea. He said that even though the Minsk agreements were not perfect, say the least, that's the path we have to be on for now. He emphasized that there may be tough to be changes as the Deputy Prime Minister indicated earlier. He talked about the ceasefire, which as people in Ukraine know was controversial at the outset and politically risky. But Steve Began thought that this was a wise choice and a wise move and people are not Ukrainian soldiers in particular not being killed every week as they were. He was very clear that the letter of the Minsk agreements, notwithstanding the specifics of the Minsk agreements, notwithstanding security must come first. And what that means is Ukraine or an international organization or force that the Deputy Prime Minister talked about from the Croatian experience would have to be there to provide security and would have to control the border before elections take place. He was very clear about that. I've heard George Kent made that make that same same point. The international border must be controlled by Ukraine or an international force before credible free fair elections can be held in Donbass. And this may call for an international force. Steve Began talks about the OSCE, a multinational force, a coalition of the willing to be present in Donbass, present in Donbass to provide security for the preparation for the elections. The US and EU will have a important role in particular in financing reconstruction. Deputy Prime Minister talked about the important component of this whole resolution of being reconstruction financing and reintegration. And Arisia talked about that as well. The Deputy Secretary, Began said that very clearly that the Russians need to understand that economic sanctions associated with the Russian actions in Donbass, as I think from those associated with Crimea, won't be lifted until the Russians are out of Donbass and the border is back in Ukrainian control. That was a strong message that the Deputy Secretary. He went on to say that the economic sanctions could even be strengthened if the Russians don't work constructively to resolve the conflict. This is an important signal. Secretary Began said that the United States would certainly consider a request for more active participation and efforts to find peace, but that the important decisions must be agreed between Ukrainians and Russians. He finally came away from his visit to Kiev last month with George Kent, more optimistic than he had been about Ukraine's future, and he looks forward to that. When George joins us, he can elaborate. And so, Don, with that, let me turn it back over to you for questions, discussion among the participants here and suggestions from the audience. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, we are going to have a question-and-answer period, but in this transitional, from these very interesting comments to then, I wanted to use the moderator's prerogative for one question. And this goes back to some of the comments of the minister. The issue of Russian intentions is critical here, and a lot of people think that the Russians, given all the things that Minister Reznikov talked about, the disease, economic trouble, fall of oil prices, that the Russians may be willing to reach a deal in some way. Ms. Lutsaevich seemed to be more skeptical about that, but I wanted to raise that question right at the outset, part one, and part two, would be what could we do on our side to encourage some kind of movement on the Russian side? I think Minister Reznikov will start with you, but welcome comments from anybody else. Thank you for your question. I would like to repeat, we know the mindset of Russians very well because we all had come from the same cradle of the Soviet Union. That mentality is understandable for us, and I'm sure they are very pragmatic, their government especially. This is why at this time Donbass becomes a big burden for Russia's economy. I would like to remind you that according to what we know, 1.3 billion US dollars is only spent there to nourish all the occupied territories budgets. Also, according to our estimates, they spent 3.7 billion for other needs, so totally they lose about 5 billion per year, which is already 30 billion lost in six years, and they can see that the Novorossiya project was a failure. So pragmatically they need to leave, but the question is what they want to bargain for. So the first thing that comes to the mind is they would like to persuade the leaders of other countries, the United States, Britain, Canada and the EU, saying, How about we leave Donbass, you persuade Ukraine to give up Crimea, and that will be it. But you have to understand that Ukraine will never accept that proposition, nobody should even think about it. Crimea is occupied, Sevastopol is occupied, they are Ukrainian, and complete renewal of Ukrainian territory and dignity is real. So Russia needs something else in order to avoid the impression that they were defeated in this war, because they show that they are strong power and pretend they are mediators, so they need to look for an option that would show them, give them a chance to save their face and demonstrate that they achieved a victory. So the idea of further empowerment of alliance supporting Ukraine and strengthening the sanctions, economic sanctions, so that Russia would show their victory in saving the costs of staying. So countries such as the US NATO countries might come up with more things to bring on the table, and it's not a secret for us that Russia is waiting for outcomes of US presidential elections. I can feel based on how the negotiations are moving, one way or another they are trying to delay the negotiations and the council consultations, but I really had the chance to speak with Deputy Secretary Bihun in this office, in this room, and he told me that US policy will not change in any way, the philosophy of deep state is working and the support of the Ukrainian state will not change on behalf of the United States. We are very thankful for this message, so please give Mr. Bihun my words of gratitude and we look forward to continuing consultations and wait to see what Russia is ready to bargain for. It's a pragmatic issue, they have no pragmatic interest in the Donbass, economic or ethnic or religious, no kind, thank you. Thank you sir. Before we get to the Q&A I wanted to tell our viewers and listeners that use the chat function to send your questions to me and our team and also identify yourself please. And I think most of us are accustomed to it now, hit chat and please ask your question. I want to ask one more question before we go to the Q&A and ask for Ambassador Yelchinka. And as to say sir, could you say a word about the influence of the Belarus crisis on Ukraine security situation, we see a lot of military activity, we see other things, could you in a minute or two give us a better sense of that. Well, I think that of course this influence is very high. And it was stressed in many cases by the foreign minister of Ukraine, by President Zelensky, by prime minister and many politicians in Bukhovna Rada in particular. So I would add to that that, you know, there are sort of very visible effects of the situation in Belarus, which influence on Ukraine, like as you mentioned the presence of the Russian troops there. And the troops were there even before, and they were along the border between Belarus and Ukraine. But of course, the number of troops was increased. Later as a result of Lukashenko's request to Putin. Another thing which is not so visible but goes without any question that there is a heavy presence of the Russian security personnel all over the Belarusian authorities. Another thing is that Belarus is a part of the so called Union State between Russia and Belarus. And there are things which are enshrined in the treaty on the creation of the state, which not many people noticed. For example, that both countries sort of provide for the common position on international issues, which means in fact that Belarus doesn't have any foreign policy. It does have the common foreign policy of Russia and Belarus and they need to follow this. Now on the kind of invisible things, which not many people mentioned, and this is probably more my personal opinion based on my experience in, you know, communication with Belarusian diplomats, mostly in New York and the United Nations, but also bilaterally. That judging from the statements of Mrs. Tikhanovskaya, we should not expect any dramatic and positive changes in the position of Belarus with regard to Ukraine, in case if she or any other representative of the opposition would come to power in Belarus. Which makes me quite pessimistic. But the ground for optimism, on the other hand, is that the relations between the people of Ukraine and Belarus are the best proof that Belarus in general as a public society doesn't have any, you know, negative feelings or negative intentions with the Ukraine. We also have a very long history of, you know, joint life in the former Soviet Union. And even before that, we are neighbors that are very close economic links. There is an active exchange of people across the border between Ukraine and Belarus even now. Many, many Belarusians after the events of August after the presidential elections in Belarus decided to go and stay in Ukraine for the time being. So, generally speaking, to sum up, I'm optimistic in any outcome of the situation in Belarus, you know, the future of our relations I think would be positive. Thank you, sir. And I would note for the group, the audience that Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent has joined us, including his famous bow tie and welcome George. Please, if we welcome remarks from you about the US policy and what's going on in the region and hope you can stay for any Qs and As that people have from the audience. Thanks, John. Thanks, Bill. And I guess a good segue hearing the ambassador talk about Belarus since I was just in a conversation about Belarus. So I think, as I understand it, Bill summarized what Deputy Secretary Begans approach was in his commentary several weeks ago as part of the yes discussions and Applebaum curated the conversation with him. The US obviously supports successful Ukraine. We support Ukraine's territorial integrity. The entirety of Donbass is Ukraine and going to the theme of the event is, is there a successful resolution possible. It's always possible. It depends on the political will of the parties. The basic outlines of what was agreed to in Minsk in September 2014 and February 2015 was meant to be implemented by the end of 2015. Obviously, we're now almost five years beyond that. And it's a great sign that for the first time in six years, more or less, the large scale fighting has ceased. But if we look forward to the recovery of Ukrainian sovereignty, if we look forward to allowing the region to move forward, you can't have an election process without secure borders. And I'm sure Deputy Prime Minister Reznikov went in some fizz innovative ideas to look and approach that, but the US very much supports Ukraine and insisting on the recovery of sovereignty and international standards for elections include the pre-election conditions. So I think you have to get the conditions right first. And we are supportive of Ukrainian officials like Deputy Prime Minister Reznikov to help the country move forward. And I'll just stop there and participate in Q&A. Thanks. Thanks, George. I want to take a call from the floor from my colleague, Dr. Paul Carter, who's asking about the specific, and we talked about this a little bit earlier with Minister Reznikov, the specific policy things we might be able to do to get some movement on the Russian side. Using sanctions, maybe George, this is something for you, specific policy things, inclusion in the GA, something else, part of a grand bargain, a term that's dirty to my ears, but people do talk about it. So, George, could you give us some thoughts about what wiggle room do we might have trying to get some movement on the process? Well, I think, again, we're supportive of Ukraine's positions in Ukraine's sovereignty and the political will is not lacking from Kyiv. And I think if you look at this year with some of the ideas that Deputy Prime Minister Reznikov has put on the table, if you go all the way back to 2015 when it was Roman Desmeritny who was putting creative ideas on the table, the lack of willingness and commitment from Kyiv has never been the issue. It's the issue of the willingness on the part of Russia and the Kremlin to live up to their obligations that President Putin agreed to in Minsk in his 17 hours of discussion with Chancellor Merkel, French President Hollande, and then President Poroshenko of Ukraine. So, it's not a matter of us giving inducements to the Russians. The Russians make commitments, they need to live up to them. I do think that the international community has a role of reminding everyone of what happened, of what the commitments were, and to hold firm on the expectations. And I do recall in 2015 and 2016, there was a question, would there be the collective will in the part of the West, whether it was the U.S. or whether it was Western European countries, to continue to roll over sanctions on Russia? And there were dire predictions in 2016 that we might get another round in June of 2016, but that would be it. By the end of December 2016, the EU would have lost its will and we would no longer have sanctions. And they just keep on getting rolled over every six months. And so the things we were worried about in terms of that transatlantic and particularly some Western European countries commitments have now been baked into the process and people accept that as a baseline. And the EU just recently extended additional sanctions on the companies that built the Kirch bridge, Crimea. It's not Donbass, but it's Crimea. And so I think what is important is not that we look to add additional inducements on the table to see if the Russians will change their behavior. It was that we need to stay firm, make clear the expectation. And if Russia, we have always said from the very beginning dating back to 2014, if Russia is willing to take the steps to restore Ukrainian sovereignty over Ukrainian territory in the Donbass and Crimea, then we can lift the sanctions and move forward with renewed relationship. But we have not seen that happen. And a year ago, the Ukrainian government under then new President Zelensky took a very controversial step to endorse what was known as the Steinmeier formula on what would happen on the last day after having free and fair elections. And then certain steps would be taken. And the Russians put that in their pocket. They pocketed it and didn't make any sort of response on the security end or to show that they were willing to take those other steps. So again, I think the issue is to make clear what our expectations are to continue to support Ukraine, support Ukraine in defending its territorial integrity and sovereignty, support Ukraine in the process of reform. And when it's clear that Ukraine as a country will succeed and move forward, I think that strengthens the Ukrainian position and puts pressure on Russia to live up to their commitments. Thank you, George. Now, Arisha has a two-finger intervention on the issue. Arisha, go ahead. Thank you very much, Don. Because we've mentioned Belarus, and I remember having a conversation with the Nobel Prize winner, Svetlana Alexeyevich, who when I asked her what we can do for Belarus, she said support Ukraine, that the West should support Ukraine now. If you ask me what you can do for Ukraine, I would say support the independence of Belarus. Because what Russia sees is the one theater of influence. It's not so much partitioning Belarus, Ukraine and its periphery. And it's so important that Belarus manages to preserve at least that limited sovereignty it had before and hopefully restores its full sovereignty. And also on the energy security side, I think it's so critical that Ukraine as a country remains its independence of energy supply and the Nord Stream 2 project, which of course the United States did a great favor in strengthening Ukraine's position. But the Europeans and other Ukraine's partners, unfortunately, even after Navalny's poisoning, are taking a very cautious step. So I would hope that this transatlantic discussion on the Nord Stream and pressure on making sure that project stops continues. Thank you. Thank you, Arisha. We have a question from the audience from Elise Giuliano at Columbia University, who's talking about a very interesting question. The relationship between Ukrainian public opinion and the actions of the policies of the government, there seems to be some polarization, as Arisha mentioned earlier, between those who want to compromise or those who want to strong to continue a very high level of resistance. And I think a lot of us who follow Ukraine closely might also ask the same question. So let me pose this question to Deputy Minister Reznikov and talk about public opinion. Which is Ukraine as a democracy and we're very curious about how that is factored in, sir, and how you see the landscape. Thank you for your question. I would like to express maybe a desperate persuasion. And I want to declare that public opinion is not simply meaningful for the Ukrainian government, but it really is taken into account when we make our decisions. Communication might not always be really good with our society, but we are trying to look at what people are thinking. And when we make decisions, we try to correct our decisions or else to explain to the public why certain steps are necessary. Starting from quarantine steps for COVID restrictions, because nobody wants to live in those restrictions and a lockdown without disco parties or restaurants. You know what I'm talking about. But we have to explain all those things to the people. As for our theme of war with the Russian Federation and attempts to settle for peace, this is a very sensitive theme. And it's important for us to signal to the public that this is not as Zorada as the Ukrainians say, not betrayal. We are staying in this hybrid war in the information field and the Russian media have influence in Ukraine. Or there may be critical attitude of our political opponents inside Ukraine. So a simple explanation. We all are heirs of the, we inherited a gene of critical skeptical outlook since the primeval days. People had these critical expectations. They always expected were prepared for the worse. Those who were prepared for the worse were better survivors in the primeval time. So we inherited this gene and this is why we have to explain to people very well what is going on. This is why we always articulate very clearly what the red lines are, that there is no betrayal of national interests and that our delegation that meets in the tri-partite consultation group and in the Minsk format. So when we are now working on the strategy for redevelopment of regions of Donbas, we drove all along the separation line 420 kilometers. We talked to local residents and asked them what it is exactly you want. And that's what we heard from them. They want to rebuild capacity of communities, create jobs. They want to rebuild their little infrastructure of those towns and villages. We took all that into account. We are putting this into the strategy and every ministry is doing the same. Which is why I would like to say that yes, public opinion matters and we are a democracy unlike our neighbors. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Now, unfortunately, we're running out of time and I hope we can continue this again in the future. And certainly USIP and our great team is willing to continue working with all of you on these critical questions. I wanted to close out by turning it over to Ambassador Taylor for a final word. Thank you very much. Let me thank Deputy Prime Minister for joining us here today and for his good work commended by the Deputy Secretary of State. George Kent for jumping out of a meeting on Belarus to have a good conversation with us on Ukraine. Eurystia, thank you very much for your suggestions and ideas and those of realism on how do we move forward. And Ambassador Yeltsenko, thank you very much for helping us put this together and sponsoring this. Let me also just say Leslie Mini and Matt Lotus did a nice job on putting this together. And Peter Wojtczykowski, thank you very much for your interpretation. We couldn't do it without you. So let me just end where George started and where Deputy Secretary of State Begin point, his point is we strongly support Ukrainian effort to end this war on Ukrainian terms. We're there to help. We're there to support. It has to be led by the Ukrainians. They have to come to the agreement, but we are strong supporters and what we've tried to do here today is think about ways that we can be supported. And we'll continue that as Don said this is an ongoing conversation. We look forward to more and let me with that thank all for joining. Thank the audience for the questions and we look forward to further conversations. Thank you all very much.