tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 16, 2014 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
2014. for those reasons, challenging human rights in ukraine generally in its eastern and southern regions is well known. childy, high level of mortality, unemployment, dangerous working conditions, especially in the coal mining industry. as a result, human rights was not what was expected in our country. dramatically in favor of building and open, civil society. haveew coalition repeatedly stated their commitment to reforms aimed at growth. we are grateful that they have noted positive trends in the
activities of the new ukrainian authorities, which indicates a to liberate a new ukraine and future. the government action plan presented by the u.n. cabinet is included. it is focused on the practical use of the population, including ethnic minorities. what we need to achieve these goals is that russia leaves us in peace. madam president, we appreciate the role of the united nations has played to normalize relations in ukraine and the cooperation with the human rights bodies of the united nations. these reforms are aimed at and the the rule of law elimination of corruption, compliance of social standards, and protection of the rights of minorities.
determined and make these elections the most transparent in history of ukraine. , madame president. for thatyou gentleman's sentiment. >> thank you, madame president. the whole of the statement is simply impossible because of not said in his own personal capacity and what he read come a something which was
written previously. of course he bears responsibility for everything on the microphone. in principle, we will not discuss the situation in crimea at the city council -- in the security council. it is nothing less and i cannot but respond mainly that the of theion of crimea third act of genocide is being prepared against it -- and these are lies and provocation. the constitution of armenia clearly enshrines the crimea language as the third official state language -- the constitution of crimea clearly enshrines the crimea language as the third official state language. the popular should has high -- now the population will be able to enjoy the fact that it social economic and
other issues of the result not only by the leadership of the russian federation, but we do this with [indiscernible] one of the largest and most the russianjects of federation, the most prosperous in which theyment would work together has been concluded. the population is concerned, please do not concern yourselves. ,or over two and a half years -- the two and a half decades since independence of ukraine, the population had to deal with this situation. but the situation will not come to an end. now a topic that is unacceptable for the security council, but the ukrainian colleague quite
wrongly repeated what i said regarding the russian language. i said the russian language is being forced out. this is the truth. that yourstep leadership took was to get rid of the russian language version of its website. you had tons of figure. why have one figure? from the schools that you had in the 1990's, the russian schools, five remain. you had to have it in ukrainian. even though it is close to russian, but it is a language that is separately studied. it is difficult to and for -- it is difficult to enter universities. this is a separate topic that will have to be discussed at length. from auite different
russia population in ukraine. our discussion to a large extent -- stars to remind us of a record that keeps on jumping back to back and repeating the same thing. a few things were surprising. a broken record is what i refer to. for example, our british colleagues refers that russia has to clarify its concern. made official statements about the highest possible level of the foreign minister where we expressed concerns and clarified detail,eatedly in great spelling out our vision of how we together with both members of the international community carpeted to do so are supposed to work and health ukraine extricated itself from this
office. if you are still sitting there and waiting for us to clarify concerns. perhaps they are not listening or perhaps they do not want to listen. of course it is good to hear and understand concerns. the main thing is to understand the concern of the people in ukraine. they want to understand the concerns of the population of the southeast and eastern regions of ukraine. listen to these concerns. one person do not meet any of the protesters. s that hes friend pointed to various positions. he told them a number of things of the things that were then denied by his colleague, good the next day stated that military force needed to be used against the southeastern region. friend from the
united states, you said something that was quite true -- that is not good when the opposition takes up arms. the opposition seizes administrative buildings. is that thistunate understanding has come a little bit too late. why did you not say this back in january when in kiev? was significantly more intense than what is being witnessed right now in the city of eastern ukraine. why did you not say the same thing back then? either here at the united nations or in washington or your many contacts in kiev? had that been done come it may be the crisis would not have unfolded this way. it is not good when the civilization takes up arms. that ins a figure ukraine, 3 million illegal firearms. people were worried about their
well-being and attempting to protect themselves. how can they not take up weapons? of course, in normal conditions, it is quite questionable. my french colleague use an interesting term -- virtual reality. virtual reality. this is a term which was in my head when i was listening to some of the statements of my colleagues. individuals took power in kiev through the force of arms. some of them have the type of reputation that means a year ago you would not have shaken their hand. stated there can be no coalition with them. they are promising you something of the type. but they are not making realities of any of the promises. they promised they would disarm in kiev. nothing happened. investigation of acts of
lawlessness that took place in february in kiev and before them . has anything taken place? .here is a prosecutor general he simply said the previous authorities are responsible for everything and they're promising new things. you are simply accepting this as the truth. you really that naïve? are you really that naïve? interesting it is not the first time we are witnessing that this year. for some reason, some of our colleagues believe if there is some armed coup, it is better for them to be armed. democrats -- it will result in democrats taking power. thomas jefferson will take the lead in all of this. where do you see these individuals, the people in authority now? do any them have the feverish reputation of politicians who are democrats?
you will not find any such individuals that. it is pseudo-democrats. have you done anything? have they done anything to for something that would have to have the appearance of democracy? they're forcibly checking those who object to them. military camps. one has been disarm from the right sector. having establish no democracy in kiev are not trying to establish democracy through the employment of armed forces. they are trying to with forces in southeastern ukraine. a number of colleagues have referred to the elections of may 25. they are being prepared. we do not know how this will turn out. what i do have to agree with with my ukrainian colleague with is that there has to be an
change, a break with the past. the ukrainian people are being go elect a president, but it isn't clear what sort of authority he will possess. what sorts of government will he per side? significant authority or will perhaps the prime minister have more authority and more power? elections will take place on may 25. elections are being pushed forward. is this democracy? is this breaking with the past and building a new, democratic ukraine? least, thet negotiation in geneva that takes place. undermined byt
some sort of action in southeastern ukraine, they will take waste. are the partners in ukraine ready? this is a big question. .e had a various formats perhaps it with this format, we could do so. the response was negative. let us see what all of this -- i'm referring to the geneva meeting. a ukraine leads to a) every region would understand what their fate is tomorrow, all of the ethnic groups would understand clearly what the future has in store for them and together we would look at the economic problems of
ukraine. this is a dialogue that we invite partners to participate in, including the sense to the number of heads in the european state did madame president, i thank you. you the speaker from the russian federation. from the representative a counterstatement. >> thank you, but i'm president. -- madame president. i will give my statement in the russian in which. -- language. our russian colleagues in any theirill stand by position and their opinion. they will represent the situation they wish it to be seen.
reality thatual say issian colleagues one thing in which they live in a bubble of the world, whether you want this or you don't, you have to participate in a discussion on the issue of crimea. it is returned to us, we will continue to discuss it. we have seen the support demonstrated by the whole world for ukraine. when you'reunate making comments you're using words and so forth. the meeting was headed by
well-known human rights defender who sat in soviet jails defending the rights of his people. he said what i said -- let us repeat his position. you set his position as lies. you consider all of this to be lies and provocation. everything that was the previous to this is nothing more than manipulation and a distortion and a stout that is well known. thank you all of you for your attention. >> i thank you the representative ukraine for his statement. there are no more names inscribed. adjourned. is
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> now on c-span, our conversation on u.s.-russia relations with a former advisor to president reagan. she said that she talked reagan phrase in, but verify the 1980's. from the center on global interest, this is a little over an hour. >> i am president of the central -- center on global interest. i'm pleased to meet with you here.
we will talk about what to do in the current situation when we obviously are moving toward some kind of new cold war or at least a very serious potential conflict between the west and russia. do you like it or not? does it make like we are back in the old times? people, some experts say that this new cold war could be we doore serious because not have ideological differences anymore. free markets, whatever. it is not coming is him. it is not a battle between communism. it is the cold war between two very different political
systems. it makes the situation dangerous. have a deeper, much more serious disagreements between russia and soviet union. maybe it is something of geopolitical disagreement. how they see the new world order. there are very few good examples managed toory has look at the systematic conflict. one of the best examples is how to manage the disagreements. i'm not going to give you a lesson of history, that today we have probably the best person to tell us how it was done and whether we could learn a new
lesson from the last period. how ronald reagan would handle the situation. constantly i see the kind of thing if reagan would be in the white house, the situation will be very different. it is getting more and more dangerous. it is much more serious and there is a deeper conflict. i've been in moscow just a week ago. the united states does not want to hear russian logic. they do not understand what we want. they do not understand why we behave this way. i hear the same argument, russia does not want to hear the west perceives the situation. two sides do not hear each other.
i still think that after all of this, russia and united states do not understand each other on a very basic level. it is a serious and deep level. i think a lot of misconceptions and political disagreements come from this deep misunderstanding. we have a person who can explain this and why we have such a misunderstanding and how we can overcome this. the personal advisor to president reagan. i recommend everyone to buy and read this book. it is a very good analysis of the situation. i think he shocked gorbachev when he said this because gorbachev did not expect reagan to be so advanced. but that is basically -- this is
a key to how to deal with these relations. we cannot trust him he cannot verify. there is mistrust. people who manage and know their history, they know about the cold war. they can tell us. we are in a new cold war. why don't we understand russia? i ask you to give us little comments on the topic. why is it always wrong? why are american policies always wrong toward russia. that is not our responsibility. it is how they look. it is always wrong.
i have been studying russia for a quarter century. they say, they did not expect it from putin. they did not expect it from boris johnson was stopped -- yeltsin. what do we do with russia? what to do? tell us. let's spend 20 minutes and you can ask questions. let's keep it as informal as possible. this is a very nice informal event. this is a nice lady. i used to know her very well and she was my close friend. it will tell you a lot about the reagan administration. they had women dealing with
foreign policy with russia. they succeeded. let's hear the wisdom from that time. >> thank you so much. when you are talking, you let me to something. i was not going to start this way, but i think i have to. i have thought, and this is what i have come up with. russia is -- i read this and it is the first quote in my book. if countries have gender, then russia is a woman. this explains her capriciousness and her emotion. she starts everything with her own particular way. then of course the man in her life is america. after all, i see it as an older
woman. she happens to have had a tumultuous background. because that tumultuous background has developed in her of course, weariness, suspicion, and even fear. the man in her life happens to be younger. he does not have a long background. like all young men, he occasionally is insensitive to her. he does not understand why she feels so badly. this younger man also likes to flex his muscles. it is not unusual that the two would find great difficulty in finding common conversation. the more i look at it, the more i see this. i have dealt with russia for a long time. i love russia for the right things. everybody in the world has
defects. i do not hide these. i know the bad sides of russia as well. they have some things that will be very useful for us. they are not things that we generally value in the united states because we are so different. one of those things is that russians are more emotional in many ways. they feel that way deeply. americans consider emotional a bad word. think of the english. they behave emotionally. she behaved emotionally. he made an emotional decision. in russian, that is a good word. we have to deal with these things. it is sad. it would be very sad. in 2001, i gave a speech here in washington, why are we always wrong about russia? i gave it again in 2005. i gave at my alma mater, vassar.
i just did it again at the university of maine. it remains the same. i just have to update it for the most recent crisis. now it is bad. i want to start with a great deal of importance on knowing history. not political tribes. i have to say that a great scientist who is a great friend of my husband always used to say that anything that calls itself science is in. -- isn't. i think history is absolutely vital, especially in this case. russians are very proud of their long history.
they should be. they have also got three a great deal because of their long history. it has taught them about suffering. i can tell you that one writer wrote well about suffering. how do you explain suffering to the people who have not suffered? that is a challenge. those are some of the things. i am beginning to give you the emotional side of angst. i really have been working and going to russia since 1968. i was very lucky. i cannot tell you how lucky i was during that keyword. -- period. i am a private citizen. i got to know many russians. i was the first foreigner they had ever seen. i was lucky. i began to share their lives. i began to see how difficult everything was myself. so i began to see how different and how many misunderstandings there were.
basic misunderstandings. everything. stalin was one thing. russia is a new country. it is not stalin. it is not a totalitarian country, the matter how president putin is criticized. he is authoritarian. i am not judging anything. i am just saying that he hates stalin and i happen to know president putin a little bit. i can tell you right now at this table that he does not behave that way. he is a man of thought. i go back to history. history -- there is a russian proverb that says if you ignore history, you lose an eye. if you forget history, you lose if you forget history, you lose two eyes.
we in the united states have consistently ignored russian history. this is more evident absolutely today in this crisis of relations that we are facing. we are close to a century. the success of american administrations has been dominated by basic premises about russia that were based on selective and often narrowly focused the is that have led to a succession of wrong assessments and wrong policies. this has been true whether these policies came from the right or the left. strangely, despite increased communication and contact, this process was most particularly marked in the 20th century and now to the 21st. we have often been almost as mistaken about russia as europeans were in the 60's century when it was confidently believed that russia had plans
-- that they worship an image of a great golden goddess. i am not going to go into this. believe me. you have to start at the beginning of the 20th century. if you go through this, you will see that when my or the other, we were always wrong in interpreting russia. whether we thought that it was great or whether we thought that mccarthy was great and absolutely right. we continue to do it. as i told nikolai, russia cannot be explained in 25 words or less. everything about russia is long. long history, long church service, long names. it takes a little time. i will not take your time today explaining what the administration says has
happened. you can find it out yourself. it is not secret. we will go on to what we can do. that is very long. i see of course -- i was very sad and am sad about this. i have always believed since the very beginning that russia and the united states belong together. if man and woman are complementary in the united states and we can find some common language and we did find some, remember i like to think about this. we are up there in space. a russian and un-american are circling us as we be. -- speak. the other thing where we really understand each other's music.
russians love our music. we love there is. in fact, i can tell you because i have lectured all over the united they -- united states is that many americans, for them, the not cracker has become an american custom. many americans asked if tchaikovsky is american. i have been confronted with that quite often. that is how much some things have been adopted. we see things that are popular like musical comedies. it is a part of us as well. it would be to me and i still believe that we have to work harder than ever.
about that, and that is hard. there are two things now that have been changed very badly. one of them is trust. as far as i can see, there is no trust in the united states. and vice versa. that becomes very difficult. as you have said and as i told president reagan, without trust, there is no talk. there's nothing. that i consider very serious and i do not know right now how we can fix that. i know that we have to try. i am very distressed about the demonization of president putin. frankly, as citizens said so pitifully, demonization of putin is not a policy. it is an alibi for a policy.
why is our press demonizing absolutely everything? i follow this very carefully. here's one thing that americans do not know. they are not being told is in their newspapers or anywhere else. as a historian, i consider it very important. in the last 20 years, russia has become according to an independent poll taken by europe, reported in the christian science monitor, it has become the country where the most people believe in god. 82%. two thirds are now calling themselves orthodox. that is pretty spectacular in 20 years. especially since everything else we read -- for some reason they were not slow about this. it has changed. the young who are now a super
majority -- russia is a young country and we have to remember that. it is a young country and now this young country -- the majority believe in god. more than england. more than anywhere. as a historian, what does this mean in the long run? i do not believe that history repeats itself. i do believe that sometimes it is a spiral. russia was the last bastion of the west against the east. that happened. i am not saying it will happen again, but for me, this tectonic shift in russia thinking -- russian thinking is important. we have not discussed it. i would love to have a seminar discussing what this could potentially mean for society.
now religion is taught in every school in russia. this is not true in the united states. we have become more secular. they are turning more towards religion. i don't know why. i just find it extremely interesting. what was important for president reagan? my story is totally improbable. i was in them and private citizen. i was always a private citizen. you have to read my book. it is a long story. the reason that i finally ended up in the oval office, why? the soviet union took away my visa. i was really mad. i had been going for a while and i love russia.
we became very close friends. i admired her kurds. i admired her survival and their humor and their generosity. it happens. i fell in love with all of them. they were wonderful. i was very happy and that is all i wanted to do. my life was not easy. i was happy. when i come back, they say don't write. i didn't do anything. my visa was taken away anyway. at that point, i said, this time that is too much. if that is what you are going to do to your friends, what would you do to your enemies? i came to washington on my own. everything i did was on my own nickel. i did not have a lot of nickels. i did not want anybody.
all of these things happens more or less as incidents. i met a lady at a cocktail party. she was the president of the democratic woman's club. we were in the middle of detente. no russians could come here. no one could marry anybody. i thought that was awful. i decided that time that i decided to talk. that was my first public each year in washington. no detente. that was not very popular. i can tell you that. kissinger did not like it at all. may i tell you that i'm swiss? we are known to be very perseverance and stubborn. i went to see kissinger. he suddenly said to me to
explain a policy, how great it was. detente is wonderful, but a russian proverb says that the wolf does not become the lamb. he said something i will never forget. well we are building trade, your friends in the soviet union will have to take the heart out. to use that world -- word, happens quickly. the senator said, can you help this woman? for the united states and
russia, it increased exchange and cultural knowledge. it was key. i always felt that people to people where what counts. there i was, preaching a little late. at the state department, they said it would be inappropriate for us at this time. they said, you are the single american citizen who knows the most soviet citizens personally. as if this were bad. anyway, nothing worked. i was about to give up. i was told -- my friends occasionally said i was forbidden forever. nobody knew why. i asked why and they said that
they had reasons. that was my position. reagan comes in. i try to get my visa that. reagan was elected and of course the soviet union -- you have to take a little more attention. there should be more talking back and forth. a u.s. colonel -- i had another life. i knew the boys very well. they all ended up heavy kernels. some were generals. this was the only one who is interested in my problem. how stupid can you get? it was so selfish. all i wanted to do was get back. if you can imagine, the people responsible for my getting back
to the soviet union were united states crews and the army. he went to do it. he told me he had deposited it at the u.s. institute -- several copies. they had that i was an interesting woman. you know this lady? we would like to talk to her. and he said, what a coincidence. she would like to talk to you too, but she has no visa. they called me up and said, call so-and-so. that was the translator of stolen. he happen to like america very much. he happen to be a very intelligent man. between the two of them, they got me back to the soviet union. except, it was just after -- the temperature was so cold.
you cannot imagine. somebody said i had to see ron reagan. i have seen quite a few bureaucrats. but it was not a bureaucrat. my children, i have always told them, that everyone is just to introductions away. i worked on that. finally, nothing happened quickly. i finally went to the senator from maine. i kept saying, i hadn't noticed the terrible atmosphere in moscow when i went. for the first time, there was a psychosis of war and people were terrified. children were running into bomb shelters and hiding under their desks. it was bad. i saw what a tremendous gulf there was between understanding and of the others.
i tried -- i finally, i said to bill, it is really bad. it is bad. you have to talk. talk about something. finally, he said, you should talk to a national security advisor. simple as that, pick up the phone call. hi, bill, i have this woman who knows a lot about russia and you should talk about her. i argued about the cultural exchange. i said i think maybe there is a way to discuss this. anyway, one thing led to another and at one point, it is hard to believe when you look at me now, i stuck my hand up and said -- i did not know how bad it was. had i known, it is now considered the worst period in the entire cold war. that is how i met the president.
he read all of the books after. there i was suddenly, just before, i said, the russians are personal people. all of the presidents men do not add up to the president unless i ask one question, it will only take a few minutes. i want to be able to say honestly to anyone i have seen that the president came from himself. they said put it on paper. there i was in the oval office and that is how i met president reagan for the first time. he asked me the first question, he asked me was how much do they, meaning those who believed in communism? i said i cannot tell you, but many of them say they love only theirs. we went on.
the president would leave. at the end, i asked him the question. i said, mr. president, if you are elected to a second term, will policy of small steps toward better relations be a policy continuing of your administration? he looked at me and had a fierce eye when he wanted to and said, yes. he wants peace, they can have it. i went to moscow, i did have the talks. they were pretty hot. at the end, i said, i said the only thing we could tell what his mother's and culture. if we cannot talk about mothers and culture, there is some logic in what you say and they said, yes. 13 months later, they talked for 13 months. there was a meeting in geneva
where it was the only -- i was so proud of that, the only agreement. should i continue to have deep faith in the power of people to people relations, nothing to beat it. not bureaucratic or anything. ronald reagan was the only politician i ever met who was interested not in what the kremlin sought, but what the russians sink. we have made a great mistake in the united states to make russia a -- i was able to explain to him the difference between is a -- between the two. the most important thing i told, was that the russians -- nobody in washington, specialists, experts, everybody else had never told the president of the united states that the russians
were religious and they had 1000-year-old church. and despite all of the persecution of the government, it had existed. and indeed, it is only limited next organization -- leninist organization allowed to exist. that turned out to be the big difference for him. i told you everything is along. now we will stop. >> ok, thank you. you have to pick somebody on the russian side. difficult to find one american. everything starting to normalize kind of. >> no, i got one. i protested the bureaucracy.
i really got one, amazing. i was looking forward to doing what the russians called -- this was before the crisis. >> my husband had a terrible accident years ago. i was afraid to leave him. i cannot do that. i do know quite a few people around and i just wanted to talk to the church. i just wanted to take the pulse. i wanted to do that because i think it is really good when it is somebody not connected with the government anyway. actually, the trust to verify piece and i said mr. president, russians like to talk in proverbs. there is one i think that might come in handy for you. and it is -- of course, i said
to him, you are an actor. you can learn it very quickly. at first i said in russian. he loved it. when i am so delighted now is it has come and gone into the american lexicon with post-people not knowing at all it is russian. those are -- which is why i, back to culture is important and our challenge now is defined to, if you want to go around the left field here. do things, something nonpolitical where both countries look good. the woodwind situation. he loved that. [laughter] you might try that. >> thank you.
>> you can see this entire discussion on our website on c-span.org. in a eight from the obama administration on the tensions between ukraine and russia. briefing reporters aboard u.s. one, press secretary jay carney says we have additional sanctions prepared and we will impose them as appropriate. officials also said the u.s. is considering a package of nonlethal aid for ukraine, including medical supplies and clothing. on this morning's "washington journal" we looked at the role -- naturalnational gas in a country's relationship with ukraine. each week in this segment of the washington journal, we put a spotlight on a recent magazine piece. we are joined by keith johnson of foreign policy to talk about his recent report -- prudent
putin aims his energy weapon at your. to europe. gas what is russia doing with its natural gas supply? guest: in terms of supply, russia has not done anything yet. ,hat they have done in the past since the fall of the soviet union, russia has used gas weapons on 50 occasions. this is straight out of the playbook of the post-soviet russian state. to use the fact that they are huge supplier of natural gas as a weapon to influence what other states do. since the start of this crisis, they have not shut off supplies. they have threatened to. the main thing they have done is jack up the prices severely. that adds to the stress for the new government in kiev. host: why does this matter to the greater eu? guest: europe gets a big portion
of its gas from russia. the biggest single supplier for the european union's russia. goes across ukraine. depending on what happens in the dynamics between russia and ukraine, you could physically disrupt the amount of gas that gets into europe. that matters for heating and electricity. it matters a bit less now that we're in the springtime. in the past, russian gas was cut off in the winter when you could feel it. it is more acute in april and may. not such a big bill. host: let's talk supply and demand as we show our viewers a few of these charts here. the first is the chart from the energy information administration. russian gasis iran,ves, followed by
qatar and the united states. how big is the russian supply on the world market? guest: they're the ones who supply europe -- there are small quantities that should be going east to china. that is one of the things on the discussion this week and next month. he will go to china -- to vladimir putin will go to china. -- you heard about the natural gas boom in the u.s. true.s right now, that is all for domestic consumption. the u.s. may start exporting gas in a few years. other than mexico and transfers to canada, it is not really a big exporter at this point. the share of russia's natural gas exports by definition from 2012. big singleany is the buyer. the smaller eastern european are
actually quite vulnerable as well. many of them are 100% dependent on russian gas. you look at the case of the baltic states, belarus, ukraine. the further west you get, the u.k., spain, france have all alternatives like north africa and norway. as you move from east to west, the dependence lessons a bit. host: explain how russia controls its gas supplies. guest: it is a state dominated gas giant. they have a very close relationship between the company and the kremlin. while being treated as a public company, it is very much used to support russian state policy. gastimes, the kremlin and company are in conflict. there will be times when vladimir putin has to say to
officials, i prefer you to do this or that. let's try to make a deal with the chinese and get some other markets so that we are not so dependent on a single set of customers. host: they have a board membership that letter has to go to? the dynamicst know over there exactly. it is definitely a situation unlike exxon mobil in the u.s. which works on its interest and the interest of its shareholders. they have a different relationship with political powers. host: let's talk about the strategic importance of ukraine and the movement of this gas across europe. here's a map showing the natural gas flows through the ukraine pipeline. becomes a choke point for a lot of these pipelines. been the store owner ability between russia and
europe. if you go back to 2006 and 2009, both times there were shutouts in the dead of winter of russian gas, which affected not just ukraine but customers further downstream. was still going straight through ukraine. when that happened, european union was a bit upset because ukraine has not always been the most reliable transit state. there were allegations in the past that they were siphoning some of the gas meant to be shipped downstream for their own use. the russians certainly blamed ukraine for being an unreliable middleman. that is why, in recent years, russia has been trying to run around ukraine. there is a northern pipeline that is already operational and a southern pipeline that russia is trying to build. the idea is to continue supplying gas to europe and could ukraine out of the equation. host: russia is starting to raise prices on ukraine.
it does ukraine have any sort of strength position in this? could they cut these pipelines and stop russia from sending its natural gas on west? guest: if they did that, they would end up harming the states and the european union that are nominally supporting them right with the imfng loans. they just sign an agreement with the european union. the idea is not to anger the other countries in europe. the leverage ukraine has a somewhat limited at this point. one of the good things for ukraine and europe is that it was a warm winter and we are coming into spring. coldn't have these ice temperatures as we did in 2006 and 2000 nine. your demands for gas and heating are lower. gas torch levels are relatively high. that ukraineshion
could hold out for a few months even if they cut off supplies. host: how much cushion does russia have? these exports are such a big part of their economy. this is why it's such a double-edged sword. we always talk about europe and ukraine's owner ability for the need to get russian energy. three quarters of sales are going to these european customers. it's $100 million a day. if europe were to boycott russian gas and say, forget it, we are not going to buy your product