 It's an honor to have the opportunity this morning to focus on the critical issue of the timing of future elections in Ukraine in the midst of Russia's brutal invasion. And also to take the opportunity this morning to discuss how Ukraine can safeguard itself from Russian disinformation tactics that target its democratic institutions. It really is an honor for the Institute to co-host this special event with the International Foundation for Electoral Systems and the National Endowment for Democracy. We are also honored, delighted to be here today with ambassadors Makrova and Ambassador Bill Taylor to have the board chair of a PORA, Dr. Avaskova and Peter Urban, who is the IFES country director in Ukraine. And we're really honored that the president and CEO of the National Endowment of Democracy, Damon Wilson, will be with us later in the event. It's truly inspiring, I think, for all of us, for the world to witness the unravering commitment of Ukrainian government leaders as they strive to implement historic electoral and democratic reforms even as they fight to defend themselves from Russian aggression on the battlefield. The challenges and difficulties of enacting these reforms, which are fundamental to democracy, cannot be underestimated. Although fighting for their lives in the very existence of their country, Ukrainians are so committed to democracy and the democratic way of life, they are reforming their institutions to ensure that it thrives. We hope today that we learn about the challenges that are facing Ukraine and what all of us, international institutions, what America can do to support Ukraine's leaders as they work to strengthen their democracy and create a future in which competitive fair and free elections in Ukraine are possible. Ambassador, with your permission, may we invite you to the stage. All of us know that the most distinguished ambassador currently serving in Washington is the ambassador of Ukraine. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. You are too kind. First of all, thank you very much to the Institute of Peace, to NED and to IFAS, and not a lot of people know this is where I started my career a long, long time ago at IFAS. So to put it together, it's a very timely event and I will try to be brief and just tell you why I think it's actually very timely and why it's important to talk about it now and what do we think about electoral process when we're going to have it. I also want to acknowledge before I start my remarks that we have with us, Andriana Susak, our veteran and active duty soldier. It's because of her and people like her, men and women who are on the front lines defending our freedom now. We can actually be here, discuss it, and do what we do. So thank you for your service, Andriana. So why is it on the 610th day of war we are gathering here to talk about elections? Well, first is because this is what we are fighting for. We are fighting, of course, for our independence. We are fighting for our loved ones, for our homes, for our territory. But we are also fighting for democracy and we are fighting for the ability to be able to choose who we want to be in the government and to change these people on the regular basis. And this has been at core of Ukraine's fight during the past 32 years. So we had not only worked tirelessly to have free and fair elections in our country, but if you will analyze any revolution that we had from the revolution on granite, which was for independence, to the Orange Revolution, which actually happened because our choice was stolen from us. It was not even because of one or another candidate. It was because we knew that this is how we voted, and the state tried to steal the choice from us. And actually the revolution of dignity started when, again, our choice to join the European Union, to choose those values was stolen from us. So it's very much deeply ingrained in Ukrainian genes and in our political culture. This craving for not only freedom, but also for democracy. So that's why it's important that we are fighting for democracy, we are the front of democracy, and democracy is very important for us. And free and fair elections are a very important element of democracy. Now the second part of remarks is, are we going to have elections now? Because if there was no full-fledged war, and we were in situations where we were before 24 February, we would be just days away from the 29th of October, which would be the date when all Ukrainians would go and vote. But we are in a full-fledged war. And in this war where not only the war is going on on all territory of Ukraine, the aggressor occupies right now more than 20% of our territory. There is active combat. There are more than roughly a million people in the armed forces in and out. There are more than 12 million of internally and externally displaced people out of which more than 6 million are still outside of Ukraine. There are so many people that are abducted by Russians, kidnapped. Not only our children, but also... So in this situation, can we have the elections? Well, definitely not if you believe in free and fair elections. That's why our constitution is very clear on the fact that during the martial law, which is introduced when the full-fledged war is started, the elections are postponed. And we are not the only democracies who are doing it this way. If you will look at the history during the World War II, both France and Great Britain had to postpone the elections until the victory. Because there is no way you can actually, A, have people campaign and get a fair representation and fair chance at being elected. You cannot provide people a safe way to go and elect other people. You cannot provide the credibility of the process during the war. That's why the sham referendums that Russia is conducting in 2014 in Crimea or in 2022 and 23 at some other territories of Ukraine, they are what it is, sham referendums. And it's not an electoral process. But why are we talking about it now? Because as with everything else, of course the priority number one is to win and to win the war. And that's why the priority number one is weapons and financial support to Ukraine and more sanctions and isolations to Russia. But we also are thinking already how to win the peace. And that's why we are conducting all the reforms. That's why we are doing the reforms in judicial system and anti-corruption and deregulatory and other economic sector reforms. Because we know that in order to be able to win after we win the war, in order to be able to attract the business to come, in order to be able to be open as an economy, as a society, for everyone to join forces in rebuilding Ukraine in order to be able to deliver to our people, we have to do it now. We have to prepare for that. We have to conduct the reforms now. And the same is true about the election. We cannot rest until we win. So, yes, the elections are going to be when we can ensure the free and fair elections. But we should prepare for it. That's why at the embassy we are doing a lot in updating our registries and trying to get in contact with everyone who came here on different programs. And it's the same throughout the embassies, throughout the general consulates. That's why the electoral commission and the parliament is working on whether we need to update the legislation. That's why we need to discuss what do we need to do better? How do we need to restore the process after we win so that when that happens and we have no doubt that we will win, we are prepared, we are ready, and we will continue as a European democratic country, hopefully soon member of the European Union and NATO. So that's why, again, I want to close with saying thank you for putting all your energy, brains and efforts into this discussion. You have a great panel of discussions and I'm sure you will learn a lot and you will enjoy a lot and we will get more people to work on it. But let's also, if I can walk away with one message, is in weapons is what we need for free and fair elections now. It's the most critical need right now in order to be able to win faster. And if we can do that and we can liberate our territories faster, then we can move from discussing on how we will do it to actually doing it in the future. Thank you very much and have a great discussion. So thank you all very much for being here with us. Ambassador McCarver, thank you, great introduction. You set the stage, Lise, thank you very much before you head out. This is a great start and we're looking forward to Damon's remarks at the end here. And we're looking forward to having your conversation. Just as the ambassador said, this is an opportunity to talk, the opportunity to ask questions, make your points, argue, this is what we do here. We have this kind of discussion and we'd like to have other points of view. So the ambassador described why we're here, elections in a wartime. And so I'm going to, I'm going to, we know what Peter Urban thinks about elections during wartime. We probably know what Olga thinks about elections during wartime. Because they're in print, they're on record. However, I'm going to turn the tables on them just to start us off. Why are we here? Why are we having this conversation? Who says we should be having, and we should be having, that Ukraine should be having elections during wartime? Why is this issue on the table? What are the arguments that people use? Peter, I'm going to start with you. I know what your beliefs are, but put yourself in the position of someone who's saying, you know, there's a democracy, democracies have elections, so you know what they're arguing. And I turn to you first because the international community has made this argument. Olga, I'm going to ask you the same question, because there are probably a couple of Ukrainians who are, you know, pushing for elections as well. You can, I would do, for you to make those arguments in favor of this. So Peter, start us off. Okay. I think in favor, we must first look at the fact that it is only a very few that have made these statements. They have made them very loudly, and they have created a storm. Let's not name them. I think we know who said it, but I don't mind saying that Tucker Carlson did spend two of his podcasts on this and laid out his argument for it. But let's just say there are relatively few that have said it, and it's really important that Western, I should say, friends of Ukraine have made it crystal clear that they have no pressure on Ukraine to hold elections or not to hold elections. They have said that Ukraine will hold the elections when conditions are in place for free and fair elections. And that's basically aligned by the real official friends of Ukraine. But it doesn't prevent, it has not prevented this entire discussion from unfolding. And the reason is that some argue that both parliament up for elections this month, president up for elections in March of next year, needs to be really legitimized in order for Ukraine to prove that it is still a democracy and that it's not sliding into authoritarian tendency, centralization of power. That's one of the main arguments that we've heard. Another argument has been admittedly that next year there's elections in Russia and Putin might be re-elected in what I would also call sham elections, and that Zelensky might need to also be re-elected for those two leaders to be held up to each other. I think we can all agree that that's a ludicrous argument, but it is another one which is being made for Zelensky to be able to have that renewed and prolonged with five additional years mandate moving forward. So there have been, oh I'm going to come to you, but you're right, there have been people who have shown up in Kiev, have had meetings with the president, have come out, and these I will say, because they're in Kiev, they're supporters, they're supporters. They want Ukraine to win, just as the ambassador said. And they're convinced they will and they're going to help get the weapons that the ambassador is talking about. So there, I'm talking about senior U.S. government officials from the Senate. Let's just be clear. One. One. And so what's his argument? What is he, why did he come out and, you know, you're not in his head, but why would someone come out and say that kind of, make that suggestion? Well he basically said that Ukraine to prove that it's a democracy needs to have its elections even if during war time. That was the statement, he made it twice. But again, I do think that if you look at this in a more nuanced manner, the statement is correct insofar that Ukraine must have its elections. The ambassador said so herself. But for those to be legitimate elections with credible outcomes, there needs to be different conditions than we see right now. And I think in fact it was impressive how the ambassador laid out the issue and pointed out the reasons why elections in the current state of war is very, very difficult. We're going to come to this. We're going to come to those arguments. I'm sure we're going to get to those. So Ukrainians. There are a couple of Ukrainians, I've talked, you've talked to them, several people in this room have talked to them that say, you know, yeah, we should have elections sometimes. And they make the same argument that Peter just made that is, you know, we're a democracy. We have elections to choose our leaders from, again, making, this is not your case. I understand. But making their case. How do they make the case that we should be talking about this election? So first of all, I know names of Europeans and Americans who promoted the idea to have elections during wartime. But I can name leaders of Ukraine, and when I speak in opposition, civil society or ruling party, which supports in publicly for having elections during wartime. And this is unique moment for Ukraine because there is consensus between society and politicians from different camps do not have elections, but working on the preparation because opposition looking for opportunities, they will not have any resultive process for them if elections will have during half a year because it will not be competitive. They will not be ready to participate. The same or not the same story for president because he may have profit benefits from early elections next year because his rating is very high. But what about parliament? Parliament is under the, so is defending by Ukrainian constitution for sure, do not have elections during wartime. And that's why president as a leader doesn't need to have re-election just for himself. He need big group of politicians which will support him in parliament. So it will not be very useful for him personally too. And civil society is on the side of the details. Devil is always in details. When we are speaking about formal voting, of course Russia had and will have elections. Belarus had and will have something like elections. But we don't think that they are democracies here. And that's why voting is not about democracy. That's why civil society don't want to use double standards during wartime for having free and fair elections. We need free and fair. We don't need just elections, just voting process as USSR had. And that's why we are working on agenda. How we can promote and support democracy without formal voting even during wartime because we have a power. And there are many NGOs representatives and Adriana here. And she was civilian many years ago. But now she is serving to her country. And such people as she is, needs to participate, not just for formal voting process. Maybe she will be political actor very soon. Maybe she wants to promote the security and agenda for defense system in Ukraine. And this audience in parliament, why she can't participate as a candidate? Because she has another priorities now. She needs to serve her country to defend the territories. That's why my short answer after all of these sentences, we have unique moment with consensus between separate groups which are thinking how to build democracy during wartime and how to have free and fair elections when it will be possible. Oh, thank you. That was a great response and a good introduction. And let me recognize again and ask Adriana, you've been introduced twice now, Adriana. Senior sergeant serving in the Ukrainian military, joined in like 2014, wounded last year. Amazing. I won't go into the details, but Adriana, we are very pleased to have you here, honored to have you. Please. Please. There you go. Thank you. I will sit. Please. Thank you very much. I'm Adriana Rechtel. Let me introduce myself. I was not born for war and I was not dreaming about military career. But in 2014 when Russia invaded Crimea and occupied Donbass, we were just the activists on revolution of dignity and we were fighting, like, we were fighting on revolution of dignity for freedom, democracy, like for future of Ukraine. And all the activists, almost all the activists from revolution of dignity, we joined the armed forces of Ukraine on that period of time. And we were, like, moving to the Luhansk and Donetsk region. And, you know, it's, we were talking, we are talking now about democracy. But about voting. And my first experience of voting on the front line was in 2014, when the election, the presidential election was on 25th of May. We captured 13 Russian guys with a gun. They were just moving to the polling station and beat people and take the bills. And it was, like, our first operation of civilians, military civilians on that period of time. And it was very interesting because on that presidential election, the activists who were fighting for democracy and best future for Ukraine were on the front line after revolution and we were not voting on that period of time. But other people have. Now 2022 changed also the same situation. All the public speakers, almost all the public speakers, civilians, like activists, are now mobilized to armed forces of Ukraine. And two days ago here in the United States, I read principles before politics. Our principles of armed forces of Ukraine is to save democracy, to protect democracy, to make democracy lives in Ukraine and then to make the chance to blooming and, like, to have a future for democracy in Ukraine. And now the situation on the front line is very hard because, like, the first line is burned, heated, Russians heated not only military, like the first line of fighting, but also civilians building hospitals and others. And I can't even imagine how we can vote on the front line and how civilians can vote on the front line. Now activists are on the front line, their families are refugees in different countries and these civilians will not gather for voting because they are afraid. Because Russia uses cruise missiles to hit the houses or the places where people gathering. We saw this just a few weeks ago in Kharkiv where they heated where the funeral was and it was like every third person of the village. Yes, we can speak about digitalization, but, you know, like Internet or Elon Musk, they gave us the Starlink, they are not working on the first line of front line because it's forbidden territory for Starlink and we are without Internet and without connection. We, like, military today in Ukraine the highest rank of hopeless of civilians are for military forces in Ukraine. And if military will not have a chance to vote because military are fighting for democracy, then what's the meaning of democracy in Ukraine is? And military are activists, military are going to fight not only on the front line, but other in advocacy campaign, in reform sector and others. As before 2022, after the mobilization in 2014, I became an activist in Ukraine. I became a chairwoman of Ukrainian women veterans movement. We changed legislation given an opportunity for women to for equal rights in military service. We also were in the peace building process in 2018, the first time when I've met with women from occupied territory in Turkey and we were talking about peace, about democracy and I can say that occupied territory, it's not about democracy, it's not about freedom and it's not about the chance given even to spoke about principles of life, rule of law or something that democracy deals with. That's why I'm asking, like, to support us in fighting for democracy now. And then we will give a chance for democracy to live in Ukraine and you gave a chance for us, for activists who are now dying for this democracy, just to be the part of this democracy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. You've given us a lot of those arguments that we were going to come back to. Peter wanted to say something right away after the, please go ahead Peter. First and foremost, I want to thank you for your service because you and your fellow soldiers protect us living in Kiev and C-2 that we can do what we do, it didn't happen without the soldiers. But I also think it's immensely important to look at this from the military's and from the soldier's point of view. I mean, I think we can all agree as a slight insult to the army and to the soldiers that some may argue that Ukraine is no longer a democracy while at the same time thousands of soldiers are dying all the time in defense of that very democracy, for that very freedom. And that's actually something that saddens me in this whole dialogue that there is this question that some question Ukraine's commitment to democracy because I think that is what soldiers are dying for. But I also think it is very important to remember that for wars to be fought effectively, there needs to be unity in the rear, as you would say as soldiers. And one big issue with holding elections and electoral processes is it is incredibly messy in all democracies. It means that politicians turn their attention to win their campaign, to win their seats, to do political campaigning, it interrupts good governance, it interrupts service, delivery and so forth. So I actually think that from the military and the soldier's point of view, it's a reasonable request that there is quiet in the rear and that there is unity and support for the fight that happens on the front line. I would think that if there was parliamentary and or presidential elections, this would be a very, very difficult period also for the soldiers who needs the rest of the population to be united behind them. So I think this is an important argument and in fact we owe that to you and to other soldiers in Ukraine. Peter, let me just echo your thanks to Adriana and all the soldiers that are out there defending not just those people living in it, like you, like you both living in Kiev, not just the rest of Ukraine, but Europe, but the United States. So you are, as you've pointed out, you're fighting for your communities, yourselves, your families, your existence, but you're fighting for our security as well. So we owe you, we owe you, we have a big debt. On Peter's point about elections, and Peter knows something about elections, so I work with Peter Irving in many difficult situations, not just in Ukraine. I think we may have met in Afghanistan, and he's run elections in Iraq, and so he knows about elections, and his point about elections being by definition divisive, that's, you know, there's one side, there's another side, or several sides, and they argue against each other and they point out problems, and the important thing that the ambassador led off with, the first priority is winning the war. And to win the war, we need, the international community, Ukrainians need unity. No, that's exactly right. Okay, you've made this point as well. Any thoughts on, so we have two people who know a lot about elections and democracy. You've observed a lot of elections on this thing, thoughts on this question of unity that both Adriana and Peter raised. So, I observed the election with Opor and Opor observed with me and, you know, we are a big team in Ukraine from 2006. That's why I remember how election looked like after the Orange Revolution, because I was an activist on those days student, and I fighted for democracy on the Maidan, and then I became a member of election commission. That's why I know from the ground how the process looked like before all reforms, international support, plan of that realization, and so on and so forth. I remember the days when it wasn't important what society think about political agenda, about political actors, and so on and so forth, because it can be like devil's agreement between authorities, president, his administration, militia, which is police now, and so on, and everything was happening according to their plan, except one. When people came to the street, nobody could stop that, because if you have a million of people which fighting for free and fair elections, not for money, not for social payments, for free and fair elections, and staying there for months and months during very cold winter in Ukraine, we have minus 20 degrees by Celsius sometimes in Cape, so it's been something. And why the plan of Leonid Kuchma, the second president of Ukraine, Oyanukovych didn't realize in reality because there is a society. So there is a society with strong already body, which has understanding how to deal with those who wants to use, you know, formal process for their needs, who have money, like oligarchs, for paying to increase capacity of political groups and political parties and just to take a power, but there is a nation, it's named Ukrainians, it doesn't matter what ethnic groups we are representative, but it's Ukrainian which fighting for democracy and fight it not once. And when you are asking how the process may look like in the future, first of all, we want to have very honest talk with our partners. Many of those who did the statements that Ukraine needs to have elections were not on detail. They truly wanted to support us. And even Lindsey Kremlin, which visited Ukraine with that statement, he's a good friend of Ukraine. I believe that. I believe that he voted for Ukrainian needs for AIDS and so on and so forth. He is a good friend of Ukraine, but he reacted on some other issues like how to stop support Ukraine. Why not blame Ukraine that it's not democracy anymore? Why not you stop it again that? And I'm representative of civil society group. I'm not representing all society. And we gather in more than 200 NGOs, entities who had some internal dialogue. What is our list of argues? Why we need to be honest with the friends which want to support Ukraine, but sometimes moving a step back from their reality. So and the first argue why we presented the statement from civil society, I believe it was powerful, that you know when you don't have any predictability about security and nobody can guarantee that these territories or that territories or that police station will be under the security guarantees who can start the process. If you don't know how to the end of the process you can start because you waste time, money, lives, and at the end you will delegitimize branches of the power which still in their offices, so-called new elected groups because the level of turnout will be very low. If Russia will organize full-scale attack, ballistic attack against Ukraine during one day turnout will be 5-10 percent for sure. We try to organize event around table in Summe Oblast Center very close to the border and the problem is then when alarm is happening it's mean that everything done because it's so close to the border that first of all rockets are targeting building a civilian infrastructure and then alarm is ongoing. So what about that? What about people's life? Adriana mentioned that village 30% of members of community were killed by one rocket which was targeted to this building because those relatives with Russian special groups knew that people will have a meeting there. So it's about security and if everything like that is unpredictable and you may have 5% of turnout just imagine what will be the level of legitimacy of this process and the result of the process. So this is a first question about security and we need to be adult. We can't be a child that everything may happen in the worst scenario according to the worst scenario. So the second question is about legislation. So unfortunately we are not ready. We have a great developer electoral court not perfect but we work very hard on it for 10 years. I'm a very old person. I remember each of the meeting of this I okay I'll be according to official dictionary working groups it it was hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of meetings before parliament voted for it and we have electoral court but good luck you can't organize during war time or post-war election according to civilian legislation because first of all you have to think how to develop process with all with all protocols about security first then how to emerge the process if something will happen according to the worst scenario. But for post-war elections we need to change everything because we have so many people abroad we have so many internally displaced people we have million million of soldiers now which are serving my husband is there his brother is there so it's it's very difficult to accept that we have to think about soldiers not first of all but in between because it's a part of our elite and according to our porous analysis we have not six million of Ukrainians abroad unfortunately more seven million almost two hundred thousands we are working not only with officials like border services and so on or UN which are their own methodology but it's not valid too much so it's not real we used sometimes so-called private companies data like banking like mobile operators and so on and they have a special formula it's a big data you can analyze how many people left Ukraine till this lunch you know on a daily base we have this access to this data and what we see that we have more than 7 million people abroad they are very mobile super mobile and without prognosing about migration you can't understand how to be with the procedures about voting but first of all about campaigning because if three months ago Poland was the first state which accepted the biggest number of Ukrainian refugees now it's Germany so Germany needs to be a leader in Europe for having for hosting election if you want to have Ukraine in a future member of EU your countries has to host us sorry but it's a reality because we need these people back home through their bridges with political process if they will not have a power now to vote for their representatives in parliament in a future so believe me they will live where they are and we did a service in eight countries and we ask how many people wants to participate more than 80% wants to participate in political process from abroad what does it mean that they want to stay Ukrainians they want to be a part of political process and I'm proud of that we need to form the right you know practices for that legislation so let me let me just follow up on a couple of things that you said you have a lot of good good arguments there it's not all I know it's not and we're going to come to those you will have an opportunity and people in this room will have an opportunity to push you as well but I started off asking you kind of what do what do Ukrainians think and you described a couple you described this letter that that non-governmental organizations civil society put together some 300 more than a lot a lot and they made the case the cases that you just made let's let's follow up on one and ask Peter about this question that oh you just raised Peter on refugees there are there six or seven million Ukrainians abroad is that right six or seven more than seven more than seven and they are in Poland and now even more in Germany as well to just point it out you've done elections and this is not the first time you've had to think about refugees or people citizens of one country outside of that country trying to vote is it can it be done with the people talked about you know can you vote online can you can you mail in votes you know we were starting to do what's one of the challenges there Peter and can they be overcome so let me first say that this forum because we all want we also want to leave a little bit of space for question we do we won't be able to go through the entire arguments that there is on wartime elections but we're very fortunate that we have actually shared with you in print the very good statement by Olga and 200 NGOs expressing this resistance against wartime elections I'd also like to add to that just quickly that there has been nine surveys now where the public has in representative samples been asked whether they want elections during war and 65 to 80 percent have clearly answered they cannot see elections happen during war and we only have five to 10 percent saying that elections should happen and I think some should listen to the Ukrainian public in this regard also so civil society and the Ukrainian public are absolutely united against the holding of elections during war because they simply can't imagine that elections would take place at the same time as missiles and drones are flying over the country but the case in that is well laid out in the statement and it is available to all of you now the important part is now if there weren't elections during war then what needs to happen for Ukraine to further fortify its democracy and I say further because questioning Ukraine's commitment to democracy is semi ludicrous since 2014 and all the way to the war started we have seen an ever stronger democracy we have seen ever better elections all the way up to 2020 and all observer reports recognize that the elections have been improved for every time there was one in fact Ukraine can pride itself with the fact that it handed over power from one president to another without any challenge nobody blamed the machines or said the results were fraudulent or there was a peaceful transfer of power from one president to the other after a very competitive election same for parliament Ukraine should be proud of that and we should recognize it now during the war it is very difficult to continue all the democratic processes we normally have this is why martial law exists just like it exists in all of us our countries and martial law dictates some restrictions that make it able for the nation united to fight the war there are some restrictions on political process says there are some restrictions on media and this is only natural as it was pointed out happened in other countries also I was glad the ambassador took up that argument so this is happening but even during the war Ukraine is still a thriving democracy there are still democratic processes that look after things take for example the individual asset declaration a very bad decision by parliament not to disclose the individual asset declaration during the war what happened a huge upheaval in society an immediate signature collection 85 000 signatures within a week forcing the president to review the decision that the parliament had taken and the president helped overturn that decision and today there is transparency around individual asset declarations the same happened with the financial reporting of political parties the political parties somewhat should we say resisted restarting transparent political reporting of their finances huge upheaval lots of pressure international French pressures inside Ukraine society today you can go online and you can see the finances of political parties on the online system that by the way IFS has helped establish together with the Ukrainian institutions it's there there are very healthy democratic processes in place however there are still needs and you will see the Ukrainian public there was a survey yesterday where the dissatisfaction among the Ukrainian public on the speed of reform is expressed 70 something percent said reform wasn't happening fast enough i'm not surprised reform is happening it could be faster and we as we say in our roadmap feel that the electoral reform preparing for the eventual elections that must happen has somewhat stalled so part of our advocacy that Olga and I are here for is to tell everyone also Ukrainians through every mechanism available that we must restart electoral reform there are many things that can be done now and the most important one is the one you ask me about namely in franchising all of those that are most affected by this war to vote that includes the six to seven million Ukrainians abroad it includes millions of Ukrainians that are displaced inside Ukraine it includes soldiers that we would also like to have a possibility to both run as candidates and to vote now we have run elections for very large groups of people abroad most notably maybe after the iraq war the international community helped iraq see to that it's very large refugee body had access to vote the international foundation for an action system that i represent was called upon to lead this process i directed it and we held elections in 14 countries around the world within 72 days so a very narrow window preparation it is absolutely possible in fact there were polling stations for iraqis all over the united states and there were polling stations for iraqis all over iran and united era emirates and syria and danmark and sweden and many countries throughout the world and that election took place and it worked well but the legislation is not ready in Ukraine to do this there has been no progress on considering how should we hold elections for the people abroad currently the legislation only allows for voting on election day in diplomatic representations and obviously we can all see that those that are in poland will not fit into the few places four places in poland that currently are allowed to hold these elections or has calculated that we need 400 polling stations throughout poland and thousands of poland stations throughout europe and united states that needs to be legislated ifis has done a very thorough study of out-of-country voting for ukraine what are the problems what are the challenges where are people what methodologies might be available to allow these people to vote we have made recommendations but we have not told ukraine as we shouldn't which of these recommendations to take we need ukrainian elites to refocus restart electoral reform and answer a range of issues including the biggest of all how we make people that are displaced vote this is also why Olga and i last week in preparation for this visit released our joint roadmap which lays it out very clearly what are the main things that need to happen for ukraine to prepare for the best possible elections when conditions allow and these should be elections the ambassador said it well that are least disruptive of the fundamental rebuilding of ukraine that must take place elections in the middle of rebuilding a country after war is a very very difficult thing to do so we need to prepare well so what we call upon ukrainian elites to do is to restart and work hard on getting ready for these elections through electoral reform including legislation that allows for ukraine to vote all over the world thank you both so one last question for me and then and then to the to the people in this room who've got questions about about about these elections some of the some of the arguments are that well in the united states during world war two you know this is you knew this was coming you know we had elections we had elections now they don't say but we can recognize that in europe they didn't have elections during world war two because that's where the fighting was now that's probably part of the answer but what what do you say Olga and Peter both you may both have views on this when they say well the americans had elections during world war two why don't you want to have them in ukraine world world world two happened many many decades ago so and we have more challenges that we had before it's about so far it's about cyberspace it's about physical insecurity and so on but sorry you didn't have rockets and ballistic attacks here in the u.s that's why it's not a case at all even in uk it was like political consensus do not reelect all parliament and they had the same parliament for 10 years i don't want to have parliament the same parliament for 10 years but i have to serve my democracy to have their realistic active political process when parliament will play a role not will be just the puppets of some someone without any capacity to build democracy in ukraine to promote programs and solving the issues with post war ukraine and i don't want to have uncompetitive presidential election because president will win for 100 if elections will happen next year because of high level of support him personally because of unity of nation and so on but it doesn't mean that it's a good scenario because i believe that through political competition he will have a right to use this mandate during next five years without political competition he will take all responsibility about win-win story about losing the territories about losing the lives and then people have to say are we going to give him more five years in office or not so if elections will presidential elections will happen next year we will have the same president for 100 percent and i'm not sure that it's about debates discussions democracy and so on that's why what's happening in iraq afghanistan are very important as a cases but ukraine became electoral democracy with the same level of the capability as very well developed EU countries according to the economist ratings ukraine has a higher score than poland hungry and many other not many but some other EU states so what we had is a strong position in ukraine compared to a rule of law issue that we had political competition when nobody has all power because they knew that people will be active for sure when kuchma jano kovic wanted to stolen the right of people to have influence because elections is about influence it's not about ballots let's be honest when they tried to stolen this right to manage the story to manage the country people came to the street and i believe such personalities as adriana we have millions like her so she she may be died a few months ago she has her health issue now but she was participated on liberation on harkiv skullblasts when all of us all of our partners were happy that ukraine liberated huge territories during days absolutely now it's so we have to understand let's try to use that cases which relevant to our situation and 21st century exactly uh peter anything to add on that no if i knew as soon as you finish then we were going to let me yield to the audience it'll yield to the audience okay very good all right um questions for for peter yes ma'am so introduce yourselves and address it to one of the other and we'll go from there do you want a mic yes thank you ellie yeah uh hello my name is uh dr i ring on silence i am a ceo from cif ai and my question is the following based on media reputable media such as the new york times the washington post i they are reporting recently that there is a group on the military with people that are from the ultra right that now they are joining ukrainian forces military forces to help in the war my question is this is very important because this is the ultra right you know this when there is a extremism in the type of politics and so on so how well if there are elections they are helping with the war so are they going to be excluded are they going to be part of that or is this is a way for them to push into their also their political thinking by helping in the war it's kind of it's a good question it's a good question yes please yeah i have an answer because i'm listening to this question from 2014 it's not new uh and it was used by russian propaganda many times that ukrainian nationalist society we have so strong support fascists we have so strong support of far-right groups and so on in 2014 when we had revolution or dignity football fans you know that mostly football fans has this far-right position supported ukrainian protests and they were so-called far right sector group which russians used against ukrain that this group is so powerful they will take old parliament all seats in parliament and they that's why ukraine is moving to this direction sorry you know how many seats they had none and they had support only less than two percent of ukrainian voters in 2014 when we had parliamentary and presidential election and their leader didn't have any opportunity to to be on this high level part of the rating so that's why each country has far-right far left and others and it's okay if they are not having they are not using their guns i don't know and other things tools for taking a power it's not about coup we will not have like that for sure and these far-right groups are everywhere around europe exactly and in many european nations so you know period you can speak this better than i have much higher than two percent yes i actually think that you know again democracy will take care of this this is the wonderful thing about democracy i don't think that the far-right has a very significant stronghold in ukraine far less than in some other nations within the european union itself and i i think that ukraine will be perfectly able to handle that it is true that a lot of people that may have future political ambitions are now associating themselves with the army because clearly army credentials is going to be part of the political campaigns that we see in the future so there is that association and the far-right is not alone i mean a lot of people are joining the army now for all the right reasons and it will certainly be a very strong part of any campaign that they may leave in the future and that's good for them i mean i have no issue with that at all of course many ukraines are looking at some of the current army leadership and asking themselves you know once this war is over might they retire and consider a life in politics they have not said so but this is something that's part of the discourse but that's all a good thing as long as it happens in a legal manner and a very important part of that when it comes to the armies of course that the army can only participate so much in under the legal framework that ukraine has which is vanilla and similar to the legal frameworks we have we want the generals to focus on winning the war now which they are which they are which they are and absolutely are and then politics can come there absolutely absolutely okay i'm going to go to this side here and coming back yes ma'am thank you so much my name is sandra and i'm part of the learning evaluation research team here at usip i'm very convinced by the argument that to re-legitimize in times of conflict and times of war is to really delegitimize because you can't have a free and fair election however i'd like to ask a question to help you kind of think through the future i'm hoping of course for the conflict not to continue any longer but in case it does at what point does democracy erode so i'm thinking about the case of south staran which is nowhere near where ukraine's democracy is i would say south staran is more of a ecliptocracy than anything else but we've been postponing elections because of conflict because of the civil war and i think the fact that we've been postponing has helped political leaders to try to to buy support in ways that will ensure down the line that we probably will not have free and fair elections so what is ukraine doing to ensure that the longer the conflict continues you're not also eroding electoral institutions and creating environment where people might want to hold on to power it's a great it's a great question peter do you want to start so we actually discussed this extensively in our meetings yesterday obviously all of us hope for a quick victory which will somewhat solve this issue but the possibility for a long war is certainly there and if there is a long war there comes a point where you have to ask yourself are these institutions still legitimate i personally believe it's going to be very difficult for the war to continue at its current significant intensity and i think that if we have a long war the absolutely most likely scenario is that it will level off and will move more towards a low level conflict in years to come i believe that there will come a time when the environment is more conducive for the holding of an election and i also believe that if we now prepare as well as possible for all the different mechanisms that are needed for elections during some level of low level conflict then we'd be in a much better position it's worthwhile remembering that from 2014 and until the start of this current war there was still a conflict in ukraine in eastern ukraine there was a low level conflict and elections could still be held so i do believe again if we get on with electoral reform now we prepare well we know how ukrainians can vote around the world we deal with some of the issues of for example voting for soldiers and so forth when this war levels off and if it's a long war then certainly we should continuously consider when is the time to have an election when can we have an election that will lead to credible outcomes so i have to add that it's a good time for having reforms for sure more than 86 percent of ukrainians wants to be a member of u wants to see ukraine as a member of you and this type of road maps or opening the negotiation which will happen i hope so in December will help us to do reform even during wartime and let's talk honestly that we need influence we need safe and defends influence of society we need develop judicial system for sure because it's about everything it's about how to how to manage the state according to constitution even during martial law period without any misusing of this source of power and we have to speak about freedom of speech about human rights but opening the negotiation for ukraine about membership in u is a very strong tool because none in ukraine will step back when we are speaking about society about this part of the future of ukraine we did a survey i have to name three points which are not negotiable at all from the side of civil society if we will have so-called peace talks with russia and one point it's about EU membership the second it's about NATO membership the third it's about territories so the total majority more than 96 of percent of ukrainians that are openly we not ready to have compromises but sometimes state has to do step back for example to exchange the soldiers in between sides or having military having humanitarian corridors for civilians and so on so it's negotiable but there are three topics which are not negotiable so if we will if we have already so strong tools for having ukraine in so-called kopenhagen standards and principles a framework it's already working on our side and we are asking except judicial reform anti-corruption reform and other type of topics which has to be developed according to kopenhagen's document we have to highlight that we need to recover media during wartime because it's not just about freedom of speech it's about capitalization of the capacity of media journalists people to have diverse positions sometimes but very pro-ukrainian and very pro-western position which we see from the regular life of people on a daily base in ukraine there is no anything like insecure it if people will watch it not not telemarathon which we have now which are very very expensive which are paying through the taxpayers money of the u.s and EU because you are helping us with financial aid that's why telemarathon somehow paying through this money too let's step back from this practice it's bad practice let's focus on public broadcasting tv which already was developed and we need to use these opportunities of wartime to increase capacity of public broadcasting in ukraine very good you always get a lot of good things in there and this is a good question and i was very interested in that survey so no compromise on EU no compromise on NATO no compromise on territory something depends on you it does depend on us we need that we need to help so i'm going to go this side and then back to this side sir and ellie the next one will be over here lary garber independent consultant so three points first i've made privately to peter but i'll repeat here the the u.s relevant example is not world war two but is our civil war where which was on u.s territory and we did hold elections both in 1862 and in 1864 and we held elections in which today we all assume that lincoln won and it was uh pre-ordained it wasn't pre-ordained lincoln himself had doubts whether he would win that election so just as a historical example it's worth reflecting on that and particularly if you're talking to american audiences who do have some historical memory not just back to world war two but even back to the maybe not as much as you do but there is that that's a good point second is i think in some ways again in terms of a response to to the discussion you know peter and olga and you know others in the ifas community and broader have been a victim of their success because the the reflection is that we did hold elections or elections were held in war times uh recently so in the 21st century in afghanistan and iraq are used and again we may have created a you know a beast that we don't no longer control but but again that has to be responded to and i think you you did a a good job of distinguishing between uh ukraine and afghanistan iraq and and many of us have doubts whether those elections were worth holding in retrospect given given the circumstances under which they were taken but again that's part of the the public conscience so so again just to keep that in mind in the conversation the third point is i get a little concerned when you talk about unity of purpose and i understand that concept in the military reality but but there also is the question of and the last question i think got to it is when you give the population including the people who are on the front lines the opportunity to voice their views on you know whether you know we've accomplished our goals whether we should make some compromises and and how do we know what when that time is right and and i don't think there's a precise answer to it but i don't think it's it's basically just saying we need unity of purpose as a way to say we we can't have elections i think peter was getting to it a little bit when you know we talked about the difference between the type of war that's being fought now and maybe what would be a long war but i think we need to have specific conditions for when we would say you know yes this is transformed from a context in which we don't think elections are wise to a time when you know elections are maybe necessary thank you very thoughtful points any comments we don't take thank you we'll hang on to those it's very good yes ma'am but thank you kurtika kurtika's got the mic for you hi hang on to those points very good points those very things ever push regional director for Eurasia at NDI peter and oha thank you so much i mean thank you for the hard work you're doing thank you for all the analysis and i wonder if you could take us through you know i've been going to conferences recently ogp and tallen and around town and one of the things that people are arguing is that um electronic voting like particularly the potential of the dia app for addressing some of the security concerns and also um some of the issues around the logistics could you take us through the reasons why this is not a good idea and this is not a solution thank you so and so why don't we do both of those both any comments on letter garber and and this question about yeah peter so as to larry's last point as i've said if this is a long war there's gonna come a point where we need to look at what is possible but certainly we need to get on with the electoral reforms that will build the basis for the holding of elections under more difficult circumstances than absolute peace i'd like to stress again that ukraine has held several very good elections even while it was still in conflict in in the donbas i also must say that ukraine has extremely advanced public opinion polling we see again and again that whatever results come out of these representative samples is exactly what happens in reality so there's actually this is a very developed environment not like some of the other we worked in so when ukrainians say to the tune of 70 something percent they're not happy with electoral with reform in general the speed of reform in general it really is so there's a very very advanced system and some of my colleagues here in the eye iori others are a part of that complex of opinion polling so we have a pretty good idea about where ukraine is on issues and we know as i said that 65 to 80 percent of ukrainians do not want elections during war and i think that's a reasonably informed opinion of theirs as to the issue of the use of internet voting as a part solution to this it is of course a very tempting thing to think about it's a very difficult issue to discuss i mean we should take another hour on that but the reality of it is that internet voting at the national level is only used by really by two nations at this moment and it still has significant problems in implementation so the systems that we see for internet voting even when great effort it may still fail as in its functionality and recently western australia had elections with some of the most advanced internet voting systems the election completely failed and had to be rerun i mean you can only imagine what that would mean to an election in ukraine and let's remember that western australia does not have a war going on with the largest cyber villain in the world right with an industrial complex of hackers that will do everything they can to destroy the system so firstly functionality wise there's still some way to go on internet voting secondly vulnerability of all sorts all the way from technical vulnerabilities through to vulnerabilities to disinformation meaning that russia will do everything it can to undermine the use of internet voting and to sow doubt about the process and the outcomes of this this is very important and thirdly which opinion polling also clearly shows in ukraine and across the world people don't trust internet voting as a way in which to select the to distribute ultimate power so the trust issue is still a very very big issue and even the ministry of digital transformation minister federal who i have talked to repeatedly on this issue acknowledges that within ukraine society there's still great doubt about whether internet voting would be a safe way in which to elect leaders now ukraine has done an amazing effort on dia they have accelerated e-government like no one else and under very difficult circumstances there are other countries that have very good e-government but dia certainly has gotten a life of its own and they've been extremely good at promoting it in ukraine and abroad but still the demography of people that sign up for dia is still relatively young and there's not full implementation of dia at this point not everybody's on it it's a government controlled system it has been developed by elected officials who may themselves have political ambitions and i have to say that i have great faith i think the minister federov and his ministry have done amazing things also in the battlefield but when elections happen often before the election we see everyone agreeing that new technology is great but for all elections more than half often 80 to 90 percent of candidates lose the election what do they turn around and blame for their loss their lack of popularity no they find the weakest points they can attack and what what is it often electronics voting machines internet voting and so forth so internet voting is extremely vulnerable to accusations by those that lost and i assure you that russia is aware of that and will do everything they can to fuel the fire and brick and mortar paper election is much safer on that and ukraine has been very good at conducting traditional elections so i think i personally think and we have stated this together by the way we have a public statement against the use of internet voting from before the war it's still a hundred percent valid that public statement and it lays out the case on why it's difficult to use ukraine should not be the testing ground for technologies that still need to mature further especially considering the difficult circumstances that there is and the enemy they fight against so peter there were you said there were there are two nations that have tried it and one failed in australia no no so no no i mean the two nations that are most that have the most advanced implementation of it at the highest level is switzerland and estonia both of which we talked to a lot so ifis has provided the ministry with an international advisory group of the top experts in the world to help the ministry think through the issue of internet voting and we have specifically looked visited switzerland and estonia and looked at their examples and those that are involved in both countries also caution ukraine against a too rapid implementation implementing internet voting is a year-long process with lots of pilots that needs to happen with absolutely no official standing just tests and so forth and it'll take a lot of effort to make that happen by the way the ministry of digital transformation has told me that they are putting their internet project on hold because they're busy fighting the war they are behind the army of drones and if i could choose on any day whether the minister and the ministry would focus on the army of drones or on developing technology that other countries are not using almost no countries within the EU uses internet voting they're not prefer that the ministry focuses on winning the war so that we have a democracy to to to have elections absolutely anything on that so my you know what i'm looking for when we are speaking about technologies in elections first of all we will open pandora box because it will be one system which can be targeted by Russia or bad people like i don't know maybe Iranian hackers or from China very well developed in technologies people and what will happen at the end you know we will lose a chance to have new elected bodies because the trust to these process and the results will be very low it's pandora box because now we have diversity of the process with polling station ballots logistical processes and so on and it's saving us it's saving because nobody can target in in one day all the system on paper in 26 000s of on 26 000 of polling station it's about diversity diversity is better than to have one target especially on this crucial period peter is right that we had to to think on the future but we need so many processes pilots and mini projects micro projects for the future e process in elections that we don't have a time now and who thought it's about trust as usually just ask this question to Ukrainian opposition no they will say no we will not vote for that we will fight against that because we don't have any power on the process we have our observers and members of electoral commissions on the ground what we will have at the end if everyone will vote through their mobile phones nobody can observe we don't have a specialist which will be a part of the team and then which can advise each of the steps with these quotes and the processes so we are not going to to be a part of this process each in Ukraine from opposition side will say you like that the problem is again that we can be a pilot for world because Estonia is very small sorry i was observer in Estonia in 2007 when they had parliamentary election and they use electronic voting national wild in the first time but before they had many pilots so and the trust in Estonia to their government is very high they didn't have experience of fraud we had many experience with electoral fraud Russia used electronic voting so so what you know it's very difficult to understand what's happening on this shadow box because we see what's happening outside but inside it's a huge problem that's why electronic voting and voting is not a solution for us now just imagine when you here have hot spot and this very hot stage of political discussions and debates between in between political parties and the question how this post voting may looks like who have a right to vote how to register voters and so on was very very well known for us too just imagine when you have these hot discussions propose let's vote through form i'm not sure that it will be acceptable for americans let's not do pilots on ukraine during wartime because it will be even worse at the end your question about civil war i i didn't observe that elections for sure but i believe that we we have as a result of second world war international law and practices and documents on universal level which now form the practices standards and criterias for free and fair elections for democracy for human rights and so on before we didn't have it so i believe it was a good point for that two more than 200 years history development of democracy but not now we have a clear like indicators what does it mean good elections in ukraine it's about constitution it's about big book name electoral court it's about kopenhagen standards it's about venice commission court of good practices and nobody had it before second world war let's be honest we are doing level up after that tragical history of the world and elections what we have in on the 20th century 24th century are not the same as it was before i heard that it was a problem here to have water bribery i i read about that from the history i'm not sure it's okay for now true and it's not okay for for my country too let's be honest that democracy is developing each year each century and not taking into account just processes which looked like elections but from the perspective of 21st century it's not relevant too too much oh thank you thank you very much because war was a norm for world on those days so i am going to notice the time and i'm looking forward to daemon's wrap up here great conversation a great set of questions good answers on those on those questions but daemon as the head of the national endowment for democracy we have ira and india here and other elements of it i'm very pleased that you can be here great to co-sponsor with you and over to you bill thank you so much i'll be very brief but first of all peter thank you for the expertise that you personally that ifas brings to this equation to level set around what we see records around the world all go for representing what is so critical here the agency of ukrainian civic groups not just to wait for politicians and government to figure this out but to lead on this issue and you've got that track record of credit or credibility behind olga and bill ambassador taylor for your champion and view of support for ukrain's democracy over time really thank you i'm going to close just by we heard ambassador marco rova at the beginning remind us that let's not lose sight this is what ukrain's ukrainians are fighting for so let's not get blinded by the reality right in front of us that ukrainians are driven for freedom and democracy adriana said coming from the front lines that principles before politics so we see civil society we see politicians we see diplomats governments international support groups agreeing it's a mistake to think about this right now we need to listen to you we need to listen to that it's not a black and white issue it's an important conversation to be had there are some legitimate discussions and conversations about there out there about this at the same time we also need to be prepared be careful there are those who do not believe that ukraine should defeat russia there are those that don't support international support for ukraine and there are pretty sophisticated misinformation russian information campaigns that are looking for the weak points to leverage and cudgel against to undermine the support that is required and this is potentially one of those issues so it's important that we have an open honest conversation we face the reality of the issues but we say laser focused on what we hear from ukrainians that have sacrificed so much for democracy i think we have seen ukrainians demonstrate how far they will go to be able to determine their own future from an orange revolution to the euro my don to what we see and and the defense of freedom today i think your desire for for democracy cannot be questioned we do have iri and india with us even in their own surveys i think you've mentioned it sometimes it's over 90 percent sometimes depending on how you ask over 60 percent it's pretty clear the ukrainians today feel that this is not the right step for democracy to have elections at this moment they recognize that this war is about the freedom so that you can have credible democratic elections going forward so i think it's important that we remain focused with you on how to support ukrainian efforts to defeat russia but also recognizing that it is more than that that ukrainians have had opportunities where they've missed historic windows of opportunity to continue to transform their country and half-hearted measures that follow those windows that have opened and i think what we feel and see from so many net partners so many so much such the of energy of civic society across ukraine today is that resolved not to miss this historic and painful window of opportunity to emerge from a painful war but to emerge not only as a free nation but to emerge as a much stronger democracy in fact to emerge i would argue as a moral democratic superpower because of the sacrificed ukrainians have made and so there is in some degree a singular focus on how to win but it's also on how to win the peace and that's what so many of our partners are doing right now how to lay the foundation today so that ukraine's victory comes out as a foundation for a much stronger democratic future and that does include serious work and building consensus on what it means how do you prepare for credible elections what are lessons learned from other conflicts how do you think about this as the war if the war drags on if it enters a different type of state these are going to be serious issues but the point is no surprises a surprise announcement from a government would be disastrous on this for the unity that is purpose this needed but working to build consensus among civil society political parties those that would be candidates the governments on when those conditions come together when that makes sense and gaining the backing of international democratic supporters who will have to help with the financing to execute this so the endowment has been with ukrainians in dark days we started our support for ukrainian civic life in 1989 before the independence of ukraine we've seen difficult dark days with our partners around the world and we've seen how civil society has risen to the challenge our core institutes others representing labor business associations independent groups to work to safeguard their own freedom to build the integrity of democratic processes and really to push ukraine to meet and start to exceed international democratic standards so i think i would just close by saying many of us here in this room certainly in the endowment family we're going to stand by your side as you figure this out knowing that the most effective accountability mechanisms will be the empowerment of ukrainian people to hold their own government their own leaders to account that's what you're actually fighting for and we'll stand by your support side and support you as you determine that pathway as you lead the way so thank you for being here for the conversation thank you for hosting us at usip it's a it's an honor to be with you great to be a co-sponsor thank you thank you net thank you very much thank you all for being here continue these guys who do not go anywhere you've got questions for them or for daemon wilson as well thank you all very much for being here