tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN November 13, 2014 1:00pm-3:01pm EST
on 26th of october ukraine held elections. although there was no voting in crimea, the elections were held throughout the rest of ukraine in a manner which osce observe as largely upholding democratic commitments. yesterday 11 of november, the central electoral commission announced the official results of the election. mr. president, they are under formation of government and we are hopeful that the lead iing coalition will be committed to a rapid implementation of the comprehensive political, legal and economic reforms to which the ukrainian authorities have committed themselves. clearly the ability of the leading coalition to work constructive constructively alongside the opposition block will also be key for the unity and stability of ukraine. we also hope to see an urgent
start of a comprehensive national dialogue to rebuild cohesion and address all outstanding critical national issues. mr. president, on 2nd of november, rebels held their own elections in defiance of the ukrainian government. in which were deplored by many of the united nations community. these elections have been condemned as being outside of the framework of the ukrainian constitution and law. following the elections, the rebels have engaged in inflammatory rhetoric declaring themselves as defacto independent from ukraine and threatening to expand the territory under their control. a formalization of the creation of local armies and security forces was also announced.
in response the president has proposed that parliament revoked the law providing for three years of greater autonomy for the rebel controlled areas that had been offered as fulfillment of a key e te innocent of the protocol. also on 5 november, the prime minister announced that pensions and subsidies would be halted to areas under rebel control. mr. president, as of 3 november, hostilities in the east reign e reignited with the potential to further undermine the agreement. currently, the security situation almost rivals the period immediate proceeding the cease-fire agreement of 5 september. citing credible threats from the rebel leadership that they would launch a new offensive on 4 november, the president ordered
army reenforcement to key cities in ukraine. reaffirming that kiev sees no military solution to the conflict and that it would not attempt to retake rebel areas by rebel forces, the president stated objective is to protect ukraine easter toir from further incursion. this past weekend particularly on the night of 9th november, hostilities were reported to be at their worst in months. with a heavy exchange of artillery and shelling. a similar level of fighting was reported today. lives continued to be lost daily including two school children as a result of shelling on 5 november. the fighting comesed a mist regular reports of an influx of large convoys of heavy weapons,
tanks and troops flowing into rebel held areas. this connection there is no doubt that a failure to secure the russian ukrainian border is a factor that continues to impede the path to peace. the humanitarian continues. with onset of harsh weather condition, the number of idp zz expected to increase. if there is a return to full scale fighting, the numbers could grow expo innocent shlly. while the ambassador will brief you in more detail as to the situation on the ground, one thing is clear. the cease-fire of 5 september is under continuous and serious strain. mr. president the prevailing hostilities continue, the agreement could undoubtedly be in jeopardy. further consultations of the try
lateral contact group have not been scheduled while the self-proclaimed leaders of people's republic have reportedly signalled they would not participate in further consultations appointing persons of less authority in their place. ambassador will be providing further details on this issue. yet with while these agreements have been reached in various respects and are fragile, it's critical to note that no side has ab ri indicated them. in recent days, there have been some small albeit positive steps such as a meeting between the general staff of the russian and ukrainian military on a line of e delimitation. although no agreement was reached at that time, sceubsequt
meetings are soon to take place. my predecessor assistant secretary general said in his last briefing to the council on 24 october remains valid today. it is incumbent on all actors to fulfill their responsibility and refocus their efforts towards full implementation of the agreement. and it is incumbent on all of us to assist them. the humid rights monitoring mission has continued to work providing objective and regular reporting on the human rights situation throughout the country. and factors that could negatively affect the social, political and security situation and efforts towards a solution of a crisis. the human rights monitoring mission in ukraine, monthly report will be published on 20
november. the mission is seeking an extension of its presence in the country beyond 15 december. with nearly a million people now displaced by this conflict, both within ukraine and neighboring countries, the humanitarian agencies continue to scale up their presence and respond to the growing needs. the united nations is also leading a comprehensive recovery to conflict affected government-held areas in eastern ukraine. that also includes participation from the european union and world bank. finally in continuation of the secretary general's good offices under secretary general feldman is slated to head back to ukraine pending the formation of the new government. mr. president, in conclusion, the promise of renewal and of
renewed energy towards solving ukraine's problems enbodied in the recent parliamentary elections threatens to be overshadowed by the worsening security situation in the east of the country. nonetheless the prospect that a new reform or ruling coalition will be formed empowering it to move the country closer to the path of peace and stability provides an avenue for all to support ukraine out of this debilitating conflict. with the agreement in question and uncertainty over how much strain the cease-fire can withstand, we are deeply concerned over the possibility of a return to full-scale fighting. alternatively, the conflict may simmer in this way for months with sporadic low-level battles mark. ed by periods of increased
hostilities and further casu casualties. while either scenario would be a catastrophe for ukraine, a third prospect is that of a frozen or protracted conflict that would entrench the kurmt status kwae in southeastern ukraine for years or several decades to come. it is our collective responsibility to ensure that none of these scenarios take hold. the only alternative is for the fighting to end so that all ukrainians can rebuild their lives in a stable and secured country with ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity preserved. the road to this solution is renewed commitment by all concerned parties to the agreement and shared responsibility for urgent implementation. the united nations also stands ready to support this process in any way deemed appropriate. i thank you for your attention.
>> i thank him for his briefing. i now give the floor to the ambassador. >> mr. president, i am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the council about the current situation in ukraine. the special monitoring mission has since operated throughout ukraine and implemented the tasks such as monitoring human rights, basic freedoms, establishing facts and reporting terror. this month it it has also included dialogue especially at a regional level. the mission has been designed as an observer mission with political mandate which has been approved by 57 participating states. the smm adopted this from the
start to change environment. we welcome the documents and the efforts to implement a cease-fire. in recent days, the level of violence in eastern ukraine and the risk of further escalation remain high. we have observed continued fighting in many locations of the regions. mortar shelling often hit residential areas causing casualties among the civilian population. our monitors have on three separate occasions observed heavy weapons, tanks in areas controlled by armed groups. the to monitor the implementation of the documents in cease-fired monitoring process considerable security and operational challenges on
smm. the expansion of the mission to the maximum of 500 monitors in accordance with our mandate. the mission currently consists of 266 international mission members from 42 participating states. out of these 170 are deployed in the region. mr. president, we have been communicating with all those involved in the process related to the protocol and memorandum including the trooi lateral contact group. ukrainian authorities, representatives of ukraine and russia engage in the gccc as well as representatives of certain areas. i have been in regular contact with my distinguished colleague.
a security zone and the contact would be establish ed by the memorandum to serve as a reference point for the trouble of military personnel and equipment. this has not been accomplished yet. it is a bilateral ukrainian initiative and entirely separate from smm. however, the smm will continue to do what it can to help. however, strong political will is needed to make this structure work. part of the implementing the documents also is to secure the ukrainian russian state border. smm has been at the borders when the security and ready to its border monitoring.
the stretch of the border beyond control of ukrainian forces is around 400 kilometers long. in order to increase the monitoring capability, the smm has deployed. since the uavs started operating in october, they have encountered and have been shot at once. mr. president, now i would like to emphasize the heavy toll which this conflict is taking on the civilian population. there are more than 430,000 displaced persons inside ukraine including those in crimea. this deepens the humanitarian crisis particularly as winter approaches. mr. president, the president's plan and the documents provide
the framework and road map for normalization of ukraine. the elections of 26 of october have brought about a new and positived a months fear. the smm will continue to facilitate dialogue on the ground to promote normalization. this dialogue will foster the em parliament of society. the security environment remains a significant constrain. the smm constant coordination to ensure proper security for its personnel. the smm access and freedom remain obstructed particularly in areas such as south of the area and in some other border regions. the protocol, do not introduce
limitations i must stress that the foundation of all activities remains the consensus that permit council by all participating states. the smm will continue to monitor in all of ukraine including in the two eastern regions. in eastern ukraine, smm will monitor not only to secure the zone but also the entire regions up to the border between ukraine and russian federation. while smm continues to facilitate initiatives to reduce tensions and fostering peace as sustainable cease-fire can only be reached by all involved. smm will continue to cooperate
between united nations including. once again we need december escalation. the smm will continue its monitoring and independent on objective reporting. we ask all concern to urgently commit to implementation of documents designed to bring peace and stability to ukraine. thank you, mr. president, for your attention. >> i thank the ambassador for his briefing. and i now give the floor to ambassador heidi. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, distinguished delegat delegates, ladies and gentlemen. as of this moment, fighting in the eastern part of ukraine very probably going on. the two documents signed by members of the bilateral contact
group and representatives of certain areas of the regions at the meetings in russia, namely the protocol of 5 september and the memorandum of 19 september, 2013, continue to our understanding to be valid and to be binding upon all dig na tears. they are the ground laying instruments on which the cease-fire in eastern ukraine and other issues related to the cease-fire are being based upon. it must acknowledge that much of the documents. but there continues to be fighting at some strategic locations. among them, the city outskirts of the loophole and also around
the airport. this fighting is severe involving use of heavy weaponry. it is costing the lives of servicemen and civilians together with persons severely injured on an almost daily basis not to mention the substantial losses in terms of infrastructure facilities and personal property going along with it. there are as yet most times and there are many who fear the worsening of the present situation as we are receiving reports about continuing in the zone of conflict. this is in the briefest of terms, the status of the implementation of the cease-fire as of now. the question is what must be done to overcome the obvious shortcomings.
it goes without saying that the central issue now is to make sure that all are keeping the commitments doing so in good faith and there's a similar need to carry out other important provisions related to the cease-fire. among them the full respect of the line of contact separating the opposing forces and serving as the line have committed to the withdrawal of all foreign and military hardware as well as militants from the territory of ukraine.
to observe the political elements as well. in this context, i wish to underline with all clarity that the so-called elections held in certain areas of the regions on 2 november of this year were called unacceptable and not valid by the government of ukraine. by the osc and the large majority of the international community while another power of the two documents spoke of respecting the expression of will of the population without going any further. mr. chairman, it is clear that the implementation process for the documents signed is now in. the cross fire. is a cease-fire holding long stretches of the area. also there have been no new major military operations since
the signing. among further positive results, i'm noting the release of hundreds of hostages and illegally detained persons, which needs to be continued. on the other side, we are faced with examples of blunt disregard of certain commitments undertaken in minutes as we see the continuation of fighting of important places which are covered by the cease-fire. there has been a lack of proper understanding with not open disregard of certain political elements of the documents as shown by the so-called elections that have taken place in november of this year in some areas in the regions. it is against this background that they repeat my call for the strict observance of full provisions of the arrangements. i also invite all parties to the conflict to join me in an effort
to further develop the peace process by agreeing on additional documeelements of th implementation and the further strengthening of arrangements on 19 september, 2014. one of these elements should be an inclusive political dialogue which may u also include roundtable discussions with a broad spectrum of participants. there's also an urgent need for deliberation of a comprehensive rehabilitation program and even more so for providing humanitarian assistance to the conflict zone population having in mind that winter conditions are already setting in. and last but not least, i wish to point out that a sustained cease-fire between opposing forces will hardly ever be achieved without the complete and firm control of the international border between
ukraine and russia and that additional efforts are needed to reach this goal. based on the provisions of the documents. in concluding my remarks, mr. chairman, let me reiterate my first belief that the conflict in eastern ukraine can be solved only by peaceful means and at the negotiation table. we see the two agreements signed as milestones on this way. in the effort to achieve their implementation, i feel united with my friend. and colleague the chief monitor of the special monitoring mission. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the ambassador for her briefing. and i now give the floor to members of the security council and the first speaker we have on our list is the united states.
>> mr. president, thank you for convening today's session on the ongoing crisis in ukraine. assistant secretary general, we thank you for your clear and objective briefing. ambassadors, we are grateful both for you're speaking with us today and your brave and critically important role of the osce is continuing to play on the ground. this is the 26th meeting on the crisis in ukraine. if our message and the message of other countries today in eastern ukraine sounds familiar, it's for good reason. while the situation has evolved, the root of the problem remains the same. russia's violation of ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. time and again, russia has made commitments and then failed to live up to them. and subsequently offered to this council that it knows are
untrue. the most recent example involves the joint commitments made by russia, the the separatists it supports. these include an immediate end to cease-fire, restoration of ukrainian control of the border, osce monitoring of the border and a security zone on either side of the border, withdrawal of foreign forces and equipment from ukraine and the release of hostages and prisoners. none of these have lived up to their word. all sides committed to an immediate cease-fire. yet rather than observe the cease-fire, separatists have taken advantage of the agreed upon pause in fighting to try to expand their territory beyond the lines. ukraine maintained as it defends forces from separatists push for
more. over the last few days, attacks have increased significantly including on positions around the airport and near mario pole. at minsk, have fired on monitoring drones and used jamming signals to interfere with team members' electronics using equipment supplied by moscow. all sides agreed to permanent monitoring at the ukrainian/russian state border and a zone along the border. yet russia has done nothing to restore government control of the international border. russia refused to press separatists to allow access to the border and russia continue s to flout ukrainian air space with its helicopters and uavs. it continues to send so-called humanitarian conveys. it will not allow customs authorities or international monitors to search. all sides committed to free all
hostages and illegally held persons, yet russia and separatists continue to hold approximately 500 captives. these captives include a pilot and film director, both of whom were captured by separatists and illegally transported against their will to russia. russia committed to remove all illegal military formation, equipment and militants from ukraine, yet rather than withdrawing forces from ukraine and rather than cutting off support, russia is instead surging more forces and equipment across the border. they have maintained a forward presence. we have information that the air defense system was separating near one of the convoys. russia has not provided this type of air defense system suggesting that russian forces were protecting the convoy.
on november 9th, the special monitoring mission reported two convoys of 17 unmarked green trucks moving west toward the cease-fire line. yesterday november 11th, osc monitors observed the monitoring of vehicles on the eastern outskirts. five were seen towing 120 millimeter howe wit zers. nato confirmed it observed equipment of russian air defense systems and russian combat troops entering ukraine over the past 48 hours. the list goes on, but the pattern is clear. where russia has made commitments, it has failed to meet them. russia negotiated a peace plan and undermined at every step. it talks of peace, but it keeps fueling war. on november 27bd, separatists held illegal elections in the
parts of the areas they controlled. the elections contravened laws and sovereignty. they defied point nine of the protocol. but if russia and separatists intended the elections to cast legitimacy on their actions, they failed. instead the world saw the elections for what they are, a shameless attempt to validate territories seized at the barrel of the gun. a gun provided by russia. in keeping with its efforts to escalate rather than deescalate, rather than condemn the separatists like most of the international community, russia encouraged it. the foreign minister tried to argue that the elections were part of the agreements, which clearly stipulate that the elections be local and conducted in accordance with the law of ukraine. russian and separatists actions currently have nothing to do with improving the humanitarian situation or decentralizing
power as called for in points three and eight of the protocol. a recent associated press report from the rebel held town part of the territory that recently declared independence from ukraine, revealed the down was ruled by a local war lord. the power is maintained by a group of armed people who he calls his great don army and four tanks outside his office fly russian and rebel flags. asked where his authority came from, daddy said, we are an independent organization and don't depend on anyone. i'm answerable only to president putin and our lord, end quote. in a neighboring village, rebel leaders provide over the trials. defendants are not given lawyers. this is what the separatist democracy looks like. we continue to see similar tendencies in russian occupied
crimea where members of the minority have been relentlessly persecuted. by contrast, ukraine made an effort to lead up to agreements and continues to show considerable restraint in response to constant provocation and attack. and the ukrainian people have repeatedly chosen leaders who called for deescalation over escalation, first in the presidential election and then in parliamentary elections. ukraine has also put in motion critically important reforms to grant greater authority to its regions through institutional reform. it's sought to maintain a cease-fire along the lines established. the united states continues to support the peace process and we continue to call for its full implementation. we remain prepared to roll bank sanctions sanctions if the fighting stops, the foreign forces and equipment are withdrawn and hostages are released. we have said all along there is no military solution to this crisis. the solution, as has been said
here today and the united nations, must be political. and with minsk. you cannot reach a solution if one is committed to it and you cannot implement a road map with parties who, like the russians and separatists they back, so consistently fail u to keep their word. we have seen russia's playbook in crimea, so the question is not what russia will try to do in eastern ukraine. the question is what we, the international community, will seek to do to prevent yet another frozen conflict in europe manufactured by russia. the agreement was brokered under the international community, as such there must be consequences where russia flouts the commitments it made and destabilize its neighbor. russia has not earned the good faith that we would wish to
bestow and even when russia claims as the foreign minister did today, the ined a miz misblt of the cease-fire agreements actions are all that matter. and actions alongside these words show intentions. the airport has come under artillery and arms fire attacks four times in the last 24 hours. and in the last day, ukrainian positions are being shelled near the area. what we must do is ratcheting up the pressure until it chooses the path of deescalation. russia's actions are not only a threat to the countries in russia's immediate vicinity, but also to the international order. thank you. >> we now give the floor to the russian federation. >> thank you, mr. president.
first i would call upon colleagues of the council to not go beyond meetings to turn them to farces. we carefully listened to the bri briefing of the asg on political issues. we thank him for the information. we also thank the chief monitor of the osce smm as well as the representative of the chairperson in the office of osc. we were interested to evaluations of those directly working on the ground. every day make efforts to settle the situation in the southeast of the ukraine. however, we think that bringing international players to city council meetings, those acting under the osc is not totally appropriate. this distracts them from their direct obligations and
politicizes practical activities. the goal of the invitation was actually this, is confirmed by what we heard in statements today by a number of council members who used our platform and osc representatives not for seeking a solution to an international ukraine crisis, but for another propaganda with new flourishes. mr. president, the situation remains tense. the regime is not fully being compliant with the withdrawal of heavy weaponry. the cease-fire is is turning into ukraine forces on all lines. this concentration of forces is going on very near the cities.
there are systemic near the airport and that is the residential areas of the city on 6 november. from this region, from the northwest, a mine was launched and this is confirmed by osc monitors and fell to a soccer field of a school there where two children were killed and three wounded. the shelling with cluster from the same position led to deaths amongst staff of the icrc. in the russian language, there's only one truth. it doesn't occur in the plu ral farm. the i guegnoring of the truth,
actually logical that rebels would seek to strengthen their positions in areas that are constantly under attack from armed forces. it would seem that there's such fear of rebels in kiev that to justify their misfortunes and the massive sending to people and equipment were hearing declarations about russians sending weapons and members of the regular army. now we are also hearing broad declarations regarding the sending of convoys and russian fighters from russia, but that isn't reflecting the situation on the ground. these are empty statements and the usual propaganda falsifications, in particular in the current conditions. the ukrainian border is subject of careful intention and monitoring and is easily monitored from space amongst other things.
unfortunately, we have to recognize that we're discouraged by the full lack of a response from the mission or the movement and strengthening of positions of the ukrainian armed forces and other sub units who have -- it's not clear who are accountab accountable there was a hurricane system, all of these entered in the. again a group of 500 ukrainian armed forces from november, 32 tanks entered, 13 tanks, 15 aircraft, 17 tactical systems, 6
reactive systems of the area. and a tank convoy entered. why are these things not being talked about? it has to be clear that there's a lack of information on this in the osc report and a provocative picture of the situation has arisen and we hope this will be rectified. we believe there's a need for careful compliance by science of the conflict of the agreement. critical issues stating genuine cease-fire which would be come pliept with both sides. but of equal importance in the agreement are those items regarding decent power inclusive dialogue for economic situation but here the authorities are doing nothing. we're also concerned about the
president's decision to null the law in a special status for certain regions. this was the lynch pin of the agreement, which essentially now have been totally nulled. the law wasn't ideal and it had a legitimate limitation, that is the former wasn't able to deeliminate the areas which would have a special status. and the date of elections wasn't agreed upon from representatives and was a violation of the constitutional of ukraine. however, the law could have been between the rebels. an important agreement for participants to events that did not. enter into force. the representative is actually asking for a nullment.
more combined either. regarding the humanitarian aspect of the agreements. instead of measures to rebuild the area, the ukrainian government has decided on a new order financing for the budgets and social and pension payments. all of these things were just cancelled. so what kind of trust could the average person have when they are daily being bombed and not even allowed to exist. we reject allegations regarding the sending with food, medications and building materials. these are just strange given the situation. when convoys are set, the concepts are reported upon fully and completely and unfortunately the people in these regions
depend on the convoys and the people don't seem to have of concern for the government at all. regarding the elections, a number of delegations have expressed strange emotions about the elections as if they weren't democratic. but i'd like to underscore the following. the russian federation respects the demonstration and will of the people of the southeast. the elections were organized and there was a high turnout. what's most important is the representatives received a m mandate for resolving practical tasks in reinstating regular life in areas. there's no threat to the agreements contained in this process. there are unique opportunity for sustainable dialogue between the ukrainian authorities and representatives. and dealing with the backlog of
disagreemen disagreements. this was spoke about in spring. all the more so that there are frameworks for these negotiations. thank you. >> i thank the representative of the russian federation for his statement. i will now make a statement as a representative of australia. thank you to our briefers today. including from the osce in which we place great confidence in the monitoring role on the ground. we welcome ukraine's permanent representativ representatives. he described how the security
situation was hampering the return and settlement of internally displaced persons, which was becoming increasingly urgent with the onset of winter. his report was of concern then, but the situation in eastern ukraine has now deteriorated much further. as assistant secretary general has just told us, and i quote the cease-fire is under continuous and serious strain, minsk is in jeopardy. they have spoken of the blunt disregard for the commitments undertaken in minsk. we have seen credible reports of military reenforcements including heavy weapons and tanks moving to the front lines of the conflict in eastern ukraine. the chief monitor has just described three separate sightings of osc by monitors of such convoys. we must be seriously concerned
about the further escalations in eastern ukraine and russia's ongoing violations of the pro protocols particularly its failure to withdraw personnel from ukraine. and in further violation of the protocols, the osce has been prevented from the russian board. as assistant secretary general, he has just told us failure to secure the border is a threat to peace. this is all ominously rem any sent of the situation prior to russia's purported annexation. we have seen this positioning before. these recent developments come against the backdrop of so-called elections in eastern ukraine. these elections have been widely condemned around the world including by the united nations secretary general. and another direct contra vengs of the protocol which clearly
states that elections must be held, and i quote, in accordance with ukraine. australia welcomes the elections that were held in ukraine on 26 october, it was encouraging to note the report from the osce affiliated office for democratic institutes praising the conduct of the parliamentary elections and the impartial and efficient central election commission. australia looks forward to looking with the government of ukraine. it's wrong, of course, that people in crimea and separatist controlled territories were unable to exercise their democratic right to vote. and we commend ukrainian authorities for their efforts to enfranchise as many people as possible in these very difficult circumstances. the representative a few moments ago mentioned the risk from the security situation to access to
the mh-17 crash site. i must emphasize that uaustrali remains responsible. we are committed to making a full international return to the mh-17 crash site when it is safe to do so and in the company of our dutch and malaysian partners. we appreciate the russian president's confirmation to the australian prime minister yesterday meeting in beijing of russia's commitment to the council's resolution, which we all adopted in july including its support for the full, thour row and independent international investigation into the cause of the crash and for ensuring complete access for international experts to the crash site. this can, however, only happen if russian backed and russian armed separatists comply with the cease-fire. more broadly, the cease-fire and
commitmented made in the protocol is essential o to move to a lasting political solution in ukraine, which must be based on respects for ukraine's sovereignty and integrity. but without engagement from russia, this plan will obviously come to nothing. this brings us back to the root cause of the deteriorating security situation in ukraine. russia's persistent campaign of destabilization. russia's actions are continuing to fuel the unrest and are undermining ukraine's. they are paying a heavy price for that action and any further actions can only enevident of bli lead to greater consequences for russia. there is a clear path forward to end the violence in eastern ukraine. russia must withdraw all support to separatists, and engage in genuine dialogue with ukraine and the osce must be allowed to
do its job and monitor unem paided the border that's set out in the protocol. russia's continued refusal to heed the international the call deaccelerate the crisis leads to further isolation. thank you. >> i now resume my function as president of the counsel, and i give the floor to the representative of ukraine. >> thank you. mr. president, dished members of the counsel, i want to start by thanking all the briefers who, the information they brought from the ground, from your political observation, and other ambassadors. i would like to thank the security coup for having responded to my letter, and one
of seven to convene today's meeting. i draw your attention to the dangerous situation in eastern ukraine that threatens our territorial integrity with a tendency to transform the conflict, and thus, continues to be a challenge to peace and stability in a whole europe and beyond. i would like to use this opportunity to thank all of you for your solidarity you demonstrated today and before, and for your constant support in integrity, and borders. ukraine remains devoted to the settlement of conflict through diplomatic means. the establishment of the group of senior representatives of ukraine, the russian federation, and the oec, chairmans in office aims at finding a political and diplomatic solution to the crisis. this group held several meetings
including those in 19 september, 20 14. the agreements reached at this meetings, protocol and memorandum, of fifth and 19th september respectively, were to be a step for a sustainable cease fire, border, and return to peace and stability to eastern ukraine with the establishment of special zones which is to be in power with a local strong government under the ukrainian law. commitments to the implementation was confirmed in the 17th of october where they participated. despite claims, the separatists and russian federation as their sponsor continue to grossly violate provisions of the agreements. ban ki moon on his side expressed disappointment and
called on a fulfilling of obligations. i agree with the russian colleagues here who told about the truth, doesn't have the -- as well as the word lie, but lie has a multiface feature. in this regard, i would like to draw your attention to a few major points concerning the violation of the means agreements. the first point, we agreed, and withdraw military equipment from the military of ukraine. what happened instead? in agreements, militants backed by the russian regular forces as well as locations. in particular, with these
systems, and since the 5th september, ukraine enforces and civilians have been shell over 2800 times, 131 ukrainian servicemen are killed, over 560 wounded, at least 65 civilians who lost their lives. militants inspired by russia disregard efforts to set up the touch line and still conduct offensive operations trying to extend the area under their control. large scale recruitment and training of militants stakes plays in the area which are temporarily out of ukrainian government control as well as on the russian side of the border. offensive is expected a number of locations along the touch line. we cannot exclude the attempt to create land corridor from russia to temporary occupied ukrainians. in other vivid evidence of
violation of the agreement is the large amount of heavy weaponry and fuel which after the 5th of september, and a dangerous groove of illegal armorments from russia to militants observed from ukraine and during a couple of these. on 6th november, ukrainian authorities detected a large scale movement of heavy weaponry from the russian territory down in ukraine. two columns included 32 tanks, 13 officers, and trucks with soldiers and ammunition. confirming on the 8th of november, two columns of 50 fully loaded truck. almost every had an artillery mount in tow. five trucks sported the grad
system. on the 10th of november, we spotted another convoy of 70 trucks that supply terrorists with 122 millimeters and radio location stations. on the same day, a second convoy of tracks, three of which carried stations illegally across the border. yesterday, there was a convoy of 43 tracks, and five of the trucks carried 122 millimeter officers and fire trucks carry ing grads. near the town, antiaircraft rocket again, pouncer, was spotted. they are registered literally every day. russian delegation previously to date inscientisted that their government does not provide my military assistance to the separatist in ukraine.
it means that someone else besides the state has missiles, tanks, guns, and supplies to ukraine and somebody else in russia has aircraft and helicopters permanently violating our state air border. russian delegations say russian arm forces and military equipment never crossed. does it mean it's not what russia would have got who control their side of the joint ewe ca union, but somebody else with a military seeking voice. we hear many times from here and others about the readiness to withdrawal the huge amount of arms troops from the borders of ukraine. today, we have all the evidence
that ukraine is surrounded by huge amounts of armorments and the troops and demand to hear and explain what they need to keep on our borders. 200 tanks, 1600 vehicles, 640 military units, 191 attack aircrafts, 121 attack helicop r helicopte helicopters, still neither ukraine nor oec got any explanation. the illegal movement of the russian federation through the border of ukraine called by the russian side of aid we had to date to the russian delegation to the other regions also a matter of concern for ukraine.
it was organize ed organized an con acceptability. without coordinating with the international committee and accompany the cargo base representatives. in bridge of the national legislation of ukraine and the agreements reached, and the last convoys crossed the state border of ukraine on the 41st of october, 4th november, demand the russian federation to stop use i using this, and illegal supply of troops, mers theirs, and weapons to east of ukraine. contrary to the hostile actions, russia propaganda missed ukrainian forces do observe this regime. they exert every effort to avoid full scale military actions and use weapons only to defend themselves in case of militants' attacks.
let me say very clearly. the only reason why the open war in the east of ukraine has not started yet is because of ukraine's restraint. we remain committed to settlement and arrangements and urge russia to do the same. second point. we agree to ensure the monitoring and verification of the cease fire by the oec and agree to monitor the verification by the oec of the ukrainian russia border, envisions creation of security zones in the border regions of ukraine and the russian federation. where we are with that? y ukraine rendered all necessary assistance for all in ukraine to effectively implement. they supported militants, did not extend security guarantees to the oec personnel to all areas that they control and systematically obstruct the mission monitoring activities.
they used electronic warfare to jam the oec drones. does this disturbing monitoring efforts in the region in spite of agreements. the russian side also refused to join the consensus on the proposed expansion of the mandate of the existing oec observation mission that two russian border check points to all russian border check points along the 400 kilometer segment in the border of the regions. with these missions current mandate to expire on 23rd november, we urge the russian side to demonstrate a clear commitment to the peaceful resolution of the crisis with making in the east of ukraine by agreeing to oec observers to conduct monitoring activities at all border crossing with ukraine along the whole length of the border in the area. this would contribute to establishing effective border
verification by the oec as forseen by the agreements. why such a stark difference in ukraine's and russia's approaches to the rule of the oec to plan, and play in the current division. ukraine is open to transparent monitoring and control. russia and the pockets are not. third point, the agree to means to adapt a law of ukraine and local government provisional agreements in some areas, on the special stages and improvisions of the law and the local elections in some areas and the mention of the law was adopted by ukrainian parol limit on 16th september. according to the law, local actions in some areas of the regions were not scheduled for december 7. they were intended to produce
governance to have proper use of the followers, proper dialogue, and ensure reconstruction of those severely suffered from illegal armed groups saying that ukraine rejects rumors about alle alleged agreements on the issue. that was agreed was signed, what was signed was publish ed, including the oec. contrary to that, the 2nd of november, they had elections of presidents and parol limits of self-proclaimed entities in the regions. these elections were conducted in ukraine in legislation and international standards and contrary to articles third and ninth of the means protocol.
to recognize illegal elections in russia, they choose to violate time and again the norms of international law. fundamental principles and commitments. choose to act in breach of the agreements. very much concerned by the position of the russian federation which many of you have the right for people's self-determination. again, it has, as we saw in crimea, and the only authority to create conflicts in states treated in russia as zones of interest. that is why ukraine as well as the international community will never recognize the legal referendum in crimea or in other regions. whatever outcomes of this
elections. the leadership expressed concerns that the violation of the agreements where russia and ring leaders it controls in the east of ukraine. illegal elections continues cease fire regime violations by militants as well as sharp increase in illegal supplies by russian federation of weapons and military weapons across the border have seriously undermind this process of peaceful settlement and question the trust to those who do not keep their word. nervous, confirmed commitments to continue to observe the regime of cease-fire in line with agreements and called all involved in the process to regime settlement efforts. we tried to make use of four possible mechanisms to forge a peaceful solution to the situation. we call on russia, the e.u. and united states to meet together in geneva format for a clear and
consolidated message as well as strong partisan parties involved to strictly adhere to the letter and agreement of the agreements, however, we will not yell to russia's attempt in the international arena of ring leaders of illegal entities by inviting them to the meeting. we keep demanding the russian federation to stop backing illegal armed groups, to immediately and strict lly comp with the agreements by withdrawing military forces and weaponry from the territory of ukraine, establishing joint customs and releasing hostages captured by russian forces. as long as stopping the exercise in close vicinity to our borders. we keep calling on this counsel to finally assume the civility for the maintenance of international peace and security so as to put an end to this.
i thank you, mr. president. >> i thank the representative of ukraine for his statement. the representative of russian federation asked for the floor to make a further statement, and i give him the floor. >> thank you, mr. president. >> translator: i don't want to engage in controversy with the pr of ukraine, but i want to call attention to a few things. and i repeat, of course, the cease-fire normalization situation, these are the key tasks, but there needs to be trust for this, and so here's the deal. when we hear statements from your representatives who have been in the end of october, beginning of november, recent days, we're sure that kiev is committed to a diplomatic solution of the conflict or not.
from the very beginning, it seems that the kiev authorities have made to set of the fact that the cease-fire would be used to regroup armed forces and result military tasks. in the frame work of what i said that there's only one truth, i'd like to quote two quotes. the first from your adviser to the president of ukraine on 24 october, 24 october, that was before the elections, on the radio, yukrainian radio, his words. the cease-fire and achieving peace will work in our favor. the four tank factories are working around the clock. several hundreds of armed vehicles have entered the antiterrorist area. the cease-fire regime is something we need to receive high-tech equipment and financing from the west. end quote. the adviser to the head of
federal security services, also on the national radio and on 7 november, earlier or later, we're going to have to enter into a very active activities so as to resolve the situation that three or four years are needed, and we can win this war based on the scenario where in 1990, croatia started the war and ended in 1995 as successful operation. that's the end of the quote. those are not my words. and as we can see, there's not a single word about the implementation of the agreement here. just about a victory on the battlefield. the second thing to say some activities or actions do not help the situation. from your side, for example, it's a very serious matter about the limitation territorial
agreement, about 80%, and then in october with the signing of the paper, the ukrainian representative general annulled this. that was 80% of the clashing lines and limitation of territories agreed upon and annulled, and then directly here and right now, you're asking for an answer to the question, why hundreds? several hundreds. of units, equipment, military equipment, is russian, being concentrated on the border. i can't answer at first because i don't know that that's true. those are horrific numbers very strange, very striking. even to me. i could respond to that question in a more specific manner, but you will agree that the equipment and forces which with r the russian armed forces have
on the territory of my country, and they are not threatening yours. they are not moving from my country, and so in citing such emotions on the counsel like there's going to be a huge attack on ukraine, that really doesn't help our constructive discussions, which we are all advocating for here. thank you. >> i thank the representative of the russian federation for his statement, and i think the representative of ukraine has asked for the floor for a further statement. >> thank you, mr. president. i also wanted to continue any kind of dialogue because it's going nowhere. just to remind russian colleague, one of the most famous russian writers, in russia -- >> translator: there's one truth for everyone.
everyone has their own truth, but real truth, there's only one. >> the problem is that you have quoted two of advisers to somebody, and about the trust. i don't have the quotation, but all of us remember three different times your president promised the world community, even the last time it was the decision to withdrawal the troo troops, and it was going -- you worry about from where the armorments are coming from. from the russian army from somebody else in russia. this is a question i must think about the position of your leadership, why despite the promises, the huge -- personal around 49,000 people along the
ukrainian border, they are still there. despite the promises, this is about the trust. how we can come back if we lost the confidence, if your leadersh leadership, not our adviser to somebody saying something, but your leadership promised, and we are still there. i will give you the figures. they are no secret because they are coming from different source, and, please, you may brief your colleagues in any form convenient for you, but this is what we have from different sources, and the question is, that oec keep demanding within agreements, your part two, and all of this that we are to inform about this, and what the troops are doing. they are citing since february or march this year, and no
explauation. this is about trust. thank you. >> i thank the representative of ukraine for that further statement. there are no more names on the list of speakers, and before concluding, i thank the ambassadors for the briefings, especially given the late hour in kiev and demands on both of them on the ground. thank you. the security counsel is thus concluded so there's no more items on the agenda, and the meeting is adjourned.
>>th senate republican conference elected their leadership team from the 114th congress. mitch mcconnell from kentucky as senate leader, and john cornen as republican whip, and john thune is senate republican conference chair, roger wicker of mississippi is national republican senator chair, and bras sew from wyoming as senate policy chair. republican house leadership will hold a news conference today live at 4:30 eastern time on c-span3. during a house arms committee hearing today on isis, they caulked about the campaign against the terrorist group and only will succeed with a strong support of congress. here's a portion of the remarks.
>> mr. chairman, president obama, chairman dempsey, all our leaders have been clear that the campaign against isil will be long and will be difficult. we are three months into a multiyear effort. as we enter a new phase of this effort, working to train and equip more counter isil forces in iraq and syria, we succeed only with the strong support of congress and the strong support of the committee. since i testified before this committee two months ago, our campaign against isil has made progress. isil's advance in parts of iraq stalled, and in some cases, been reversed by iraqi, kurdish, and tribal forces and other coalition air strikes, but isil continues to represent a serious threat to american interest, our allies in the middle east.
wields influence still over a large swath of territory in western and northern iraq and eastern syria. >> here are just a few of the comments we recently received from viewers. >> caller: i watch c-span2 and 3, so pleased with the programming, especially the history aspects. i just saw real america, a short clip, where jfk gave a speech in berl berlin. i enjoyed the history programs wher go in and one sees the actual class being conducted by the professors. i have always found that to be wonderful. i enjoyed when they went to
colorado springs and we heard them talk about the garden of the gods. and pikes peak. once again, please, please keep up the good work. you, c-span, were the only good that came out of the congressional recess because that meant that you put on a book discussion, the history, the -- i was not prepared to remember the names of the programs, the actual programs, but keep up the great work. thank you. >> caller: hi, i'm calling to comment on the america center for progress presentation tonight from the secretary of health and human services. i'm really upset about that because i would like c-span to also have a panel of mr. groover
and some of the others who have a very different impression of the aca. this lady did a shame policy act which they did the same in presenting the material to us. they assume we're so dumb that we can't get the details, that we're -- but, you know, we can sense when there is something salacious, deceptive, and sleazy going on, and that's why the vote was like it was. >> continue to let us know about the programs you watch. call us at 202-626-3400, or email@example.com, or tweet us. join the facebook conversation, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. on tuesday, georgetown
university hosted a discussion analyzing the results of the 2014 midterm elections. speakers included post opinion wri er, democratic and republican strategist, and "politico" senior reporter. they addressed the implications of the midterm elections on the next congress and provided an outlook for the 2014 -- 2016 presidential campaign. this is an hour and a half. >> good evening, and welcome to the school of public policy election reflection event. i'm edward montgomery, the dean of the school, and i'd like to take a moment before we get started to say happy veterans day to all who served and their families and veterans and active duty members of the military in georgetown or the mccourt school communities. i thank you for your service to the country. mccourt school's excited to bring you a distinguished and
bipby partisan panel of speakers today about last week's election that will have profound impacts on policy in the country way beyond the bourbon summit. let me introduce the moderator, brookings senior fellow and washington post columnist, ej deon. to his left, pleased to welcome maggie, senior political reporter at "politico," and prior joining plooit ploo"polit was covering the election in 2008, along with numerous city and state races and worked at the new york daily news focusing on the rebuilding around the world trade center in the aftermath of 2011 terrorist attacks. she's a contributor to cnn as well. >> you swapped places. i have to swap it around. next to maggie is ana.
ana served as the national hispanic cochair for governor jo jon huntsman 2012 presidential campaign, head of the advisory counsel and national surrogate for mccain in the 2008 political campaign. in addition to that, sthe serve as bush's transition team and first director of immigration policy in the executive office of the governor. she's currently cricketer at cnn and cnn en espanol. we have paul who was the chief strategist for the 1992 clinton-gore campaign, counselor of the president at the clinton white house coordinating politics, policy, and communication, and currently is a cnn political commentator and ad jukt professor at the mccourt
school. after the panel has spoken, there's a chance for questions, microphones will be coming down the rows, and, please, say your name, affiliation, so that we know who we are speaking to as a part of that. over to you. >> thank you very much. good to know jeb is ready, has not announced it yit, but has a transition team. welcome, everyone, and happy veterans day. there's many great things being involved in the mccourt school, but one is the extraordinary programs with the armed forces, and we have some iraq and afghanistan vets, and while i welcome everyone here today, i particularly welcome friends from the armed forces and to thank them for their service. [ applause ] they are awesome students too. i want to make four quick
observations and open up the discussion to the panel. we'll ask questions and try to bring the audience in as quickly as we can. we'll have a couple microphones on either side of the audience. i may ask if there's a lot of hands, i'll ask people to ask a few questions at a time to allow the distinguished panelists to evade any question they feel like evading. four quick observations. boy, was this a big republican win. i don't think there is any way for democrats to sugar coat it. their hope was, well, we'll lose some of the deep red states, but my home state or original home state of massachusetts, my current home state of maryland, and the state of illinois all elected republican governors. there's no way for democrats to sugar coat that. last i looked, there were only seven or eight states left with all democratic governments. governors plus both houses of the state legislature, and
houses of the state legislatures in the hands of the republicans, as recently as right before the 2010 election, it was the other way around. so we're talking about a very substantial republican victory. second observation, anemic turn out? michael mcdonald who studies things very closely has estimated the turnout in the election is 36.4%, down from 40.9% in 2010. there were a lot of turned off demobilized voters, who seemed to be disproportionally democratic. if you just want to get some evidence of democrats who stayed home, look near us here in d.c., maryland, and virginia. the turn out in democratic counties in maryland and baltimore city and montgomery county and prince george was way down from four years ago, not from the presidential election, and senator warner had a much
closer race than anticipated again because of the key factors was the drop in democratic turn out over the river here in fairfax, and other areas like that. third is the progressives did pretty well in referendum but did not do good in the election. four red states pass minimum wage increases, amendments lost, background checks won in washington state, but there's no connection between those referendum victories and the election. the last point is in a way, bad news for each party, which is the continued huge disconnect between midterm turnouts and presidential election turnouts. this is complicated news for the republicans because it says they cannot count on the victory to mean a victory in the next presidential election, but i think it's complicated news for democrats because if they can't figure out how to turn out midterm voters, they are in the small end of all the states, 37
of them that elected governors in the midterms, all the legislative seats and in congress. they both have a lot to think about. i'll start and go down the panel, maggie, and that's all i'll stay other than forceful interjections here and there. i'll invite maggie and ana and paul. paul is last because he has the most explaning to do to answer a very simple question, what the heck happened on tuesday? >> i think that, first of all, thank you very much for having me here. i think that you covered -- you covered moats of it, if not all of it. look, i think that there's not a ton that is determinative towards 2016. there's a couple things that are determinative if i look at longer term impacts of what happened here, but, yes, what happened is democrats thought they could use the ground game that they have perfected or believe the they had perfected in 2012 and 2008 to bolster turnout in a midterm year.
that, obviously, did not prove to be true. i think that at base there was a tremendous anger with government, and i think that obama became the main focus for it. one of the interesting data points for me in the polling leading up to election day was that you had governors in states like florida for whom health care reform was a positive. it was positive for charlie crist, yet obamacare was a terrible negative. and so i think what you saw in the election is that the phrase "oba "oba "obamacare" has come to mean big government overreach, something beyond what it is, and that's what people are protesting against, in part, anyway, tremendous voter frustration and anger. this was not just antiincumbent, but largely antidemocratic. antiincumbent was much more
2012. i think that's what happened. the other thing that happened, and this going to be something that the polling community has to figure out. you know, we had a lot of soul searching among pollsters in 2012, and that was where the public polling was off. the public polling for the most part, actually, turned out to be right leading into this midterms. you had a lot of states with a large percentage of undecideds who broke republicans, whether they crossed is a different story, but the eternals on both sides, actually, were not great. as i understand it, he was not near the close in virginia as he ended up being, and i know that in this year, democrats did better, and crist in florida, democrats had him doing better because of things like early vote counts and absentee votes in florida, that's the grown game indicator. the democrats thought were going their way, but, ultimately, i
thought the samples were totally wrong, and about two weeks ago when i talked about pollsters, they said, at that point, two weeks before election day, you could start to see it all going south. i don't quite know why the modelling was wrong, but it was. >> thank you. so the conclusion is if they only called it the borrow care, it would have worked out for the democrats. >> exactly. >> ana, what's your take on the election? >> i'll give you my take on the republican side and what the republicans do differently this time from 2010. just, you know, we will not run richard murdoch and todd achen. that helped. that comes to the first point which was that republicans, republican entities, the chamber of commerce, the national republican senate committee, they got involved this time in primaries, which they had been hesitant to do and didn't do in 2010 and just let, you know, the ogranic thing happen, which led
to bad candidates that could not get elected in a general. this time they fought, got money, ran campaigns, just worked hard. they worked hard to get who they thought were the most general, the best electable general election candidates. second thing is, i think republicans improved their tech game. we realized we were, you know, in the caveman era, sometime, you know, around when dinosaurs ruled the earth, whereas the democrats were way out ahead, put a lot of resources into that, and, also, you know, republicans this time fought back against some of the narratives. in 2010, and even in 2012, we were like a deer caught in the headlights when people brought up things like war on women. we didn't know what to do. it's hard to say anything about war on women when you got the -- when you got the burden of todd
aiken on your back, but when you don't have the two guys, that snipit does not work as well. also, opposition research. republicans got into that game big time. there's a new organization called the america rising, which i think should get a lot of credit in this election. a lot of the -- a couple of the elections, more than a couple, were decided because of opposition research that was unearthed by this organization, things like bruce braley caught, you know, dissing farmers, or the alison grinds memo sat on for months until it was the right time to release it. which showed discipline, i'm not sure you and i could have that discipline. it was not one thing, but a lot of things, but it was a good night because it was the national narrative, a repudiation of obama. those are the things that republicans did right. i'll let paul talk about the things that democrats did.
>> did right? not much. thank you for having me here and back where i teach and love it and echo what was said about the military students i had over 12 or 13 years i've been here, extraordinary, so thank you. i never even finish the boy scouts. i come from a long line of cowards. [ laughter ] people who allow me to run my mouth and use free speech i'm particularly grateful to. it was -- well, i'll go back, these waves come, i've rid p them up and down, and up is better. usually it's about an overriding issue. in 1994 -- i was there -- you know, we -- i don't know, we raised taxes, integrated gays into the military, passed gun control and tried to pass health care. gee, i don't know. people thought clinton was too liberal and wanted it correct. in 2006 when there was another
wave, it was about the war in iraq. people were sick of bush, and the next day after the election, he fired donald rumsfeld and got it, it was about iraq. in 2010, it was about obamacare. this was not. this was about obama, obama personally, not about an issue agenda, which is how you reconcile all the referendum passing, and on my side, there's real disappointment, and i think that dro some of the collapse in turnout and some to switch, but when you go from 53 two years ago when reelected, 53% of the country voted for himming and on election day, actually, his favorable was better in the pollings than it had been, 44, still one in five, who lost faith in him. i'll rant and rave about the tea party, the races, but the truth is if he held his own, he would
have won, the democrats would have won. look at yourself. what are we doing wrong and alienate one in five obama voters? i'm not sure what the president meant, but he said something telling when he said the voters who, like, drove us off the cliff the other day, i heard you, and the two-thirds who did not vote, i heard you too. i hope he did. because i think they are saying, i'm disappointed in you, sir. this is -- presidentials are so different midterms. here's why. a vote of president is a act of self-definition. it is who you are. it really defines you. i voted for congress. my congressman now is don beyer, a great guy, i'm sure, sells volvo. i would not know him if he bit me on the ass. i voted for obama, by god. think of all the americans repeated number of times, particularly people in the middle who took a leap of faith
on the guy, and, you know, the second term's been just atrocious for him. those voters pay too, not just in the issue agenda, which i care about a lot, but pay personally. i mean, it. they go in the break room, and there's ralph from accounting who listens to rush limbaugh, oh, your boy obama screwed up. that hurts you. you don't want to defend it. you get depressed and stay home. that's my side. on the republican side, they nationalized the race and made it about obama. 57% of all advertising in the senate races on the republican side was about obama. not obama care. they started on that and got off it because obamacare's not doing great, but better than it was and will continue to, i believe. it was about obama. the sense, i think, that republicans have, they never had liked him some, but the case they are making that has carried the day in the midterm is not even just liberal like it was with clinton in 1994, but it's
weak. i don't think this has been talked about enough, but i think that the beginning of the end of the second term for obama was before it began. after newtown. newtown was about december 10. the president was reelected there, a month later, there was a horrible slaughter, and the president stepped up and put forward a gun control bill, modest, smaller tlan what clinton passed in the 1990s, essentially just background checks as it was widdled down. that got 92% popular support. 92%. senator mcconnell and senate republicans said, we're going to kill it, and they did. when you can take on a newly reelected president who got 53 % pushing an issue with 9 2 % support. if you take him on and beat his ass, you need never fear him again. that's what happened. the thing -- i don't know -- we sat all night at the chair at cnn, and now the message is no more gridlock, no, actually, the
message of the voters was, i may not like it, but we reward gridlock. mcconnell to take on the gun bill and beat it, i don't agree, but you have to admire it, and on it went throughout the agenda for two years, and voters did not say, i hate gridlock and partisanship. they didn't. i think that's an important lesson for people like me to get, but also the republicans. if he said all the right things after the election, oh, we'll work with the president. i hope he does for the good of the country, but for their party, it's very difficult to run around the country making the whole election about obama, and then come and cooperate with obama. >> i think you're wrong on that. >> no, i'm not. [ laughter ] >> i hope you're wrong. i hope you're wrong. it was a rejection of gridlock. i think the reason you saw such low turnout because there was a malaise, and people are just sick of government in general, and, you know, the guy in charge is president obama. he's the one, the buck stops with him.
he's the one that paid the piper, but, you know, i think people have looked at congress, have seen a republican house and a democratic senate for the last two years that has done nothing but stick their tongues out at each other, and it's getting a little tiring for adults. you know, out there in america, and, okay, so, we tried it this way, did not work, now let's try it this way. i think people are weary of government overreach by the executive. i think that's a narrative that has taken hold out there in america. i hope that the message that republicans get is that this was not a vote for gridlock, and if it had been a vote about gridlock, by the way, i think the ted cruz republicans would have gotten out of the primary. >> oh, wait, hold on -- >> the chamber of congress catered to one because they became tea party candidates. >> no, no, no, no. >> yes. >> tell mitch -- mcdaniel i
think it was -- >> the guy in mississippi? >> yeah zplp no, but he got supports from democrats. that's how he won. >> i have to interrupt for a second. i'm not a good chris matthews. [ laughter ] the -- >> there's no such thing. [ laughter ] it's a joke! it's a joke! i used to work with him. [ laughter ] >> here's two things, one is it seems to me that the evidence is that, in fact, the republican voters were there to vote against obama and the democrat were the ones dissatisfied with the ones in washington which is why they didn't vote. that's pallul's suggestion. starting with maggie because we were at the quiet end of the table together. >> exactly. >> it seems to be democrats were stuck in two ways on the question of president obama. way one was they couldn't -- there was a lot to brag about if
you are talking about a drop in the unemployment rate, where the economy was when obama took over a rising stock market. we're much better off than we were when he started. however, democrats were petrified of saying any of that because there were so many voters hurting, and wages were not moving, but then they did not offer much of a plan for those voters either. it seemed democrats were tongue tied on that and obama because if everybody is attacking the president and the response is, well, i'm not him, that's t democrat talking. there's not an argument going on about the president. it seems to me the whole dialogue of the campaign was utterly dominated by the republicans and democrats talked themselves into silence practically. maggie? >> no, i think that's exactly right. i thought -- i agree with everything paul said, by the way, just about sort of how the voting played out, and i think your diagnosis is correct that,
i mean, the polling shows the democrats did not turn out. i think thatne one of the most telling moments in the kentucky senate race was when she would not say whether she voted for obama. that was terrible for her. i think that speaks to what you are talking about, and democrats ended up distancing themselves from obama and not offering a future vision or holistic message where to take the country. instead, there was a lot of tack t ticks and individualized targeting. you saw a lot of stuff about women's issues, economic issues, you saw a lot of very small bore economic discussion that because there were too many voters who do not feel like this economic recovery is benefitting them, and hard for them to make this case. this is where, not to jump ahead, but this is where i think the launch pad for 2016 will be. we saw a couple things on
tuesday, one of which, and i wrote about it the other day. there's a huge correlation between the amount of negative ads you saw in every single one of the races and everybody's favorable, unfavorable going down. you had really nobody who was either at 50 and certainly above 50 in terms of incumbents, one person, maybe warner, and he almost lost, and so the races to the bottom are the norm, and people are turned off and do not reward gridlock. that's where i disagree with paul on, but i think that for the democrat party especially, and for the bearer to be hillary clinton, there's an everyonetous to come up with a broader economic message about what you just mentioned about wage stagnation, how to fix it, and growing out the middle class, and it has to be more forward looking than what we saw in the midterms. >> yeah, i agree with that. let me ask you to play a role
you don't play. i'd like to ask ana to say what kind of campaign would you run if you had been the democrats, and i want to ask paul, if you had been on president obama's staff six months ago, what would you have toll him to do differently than he did? what kind of campaign would you run if you were a democrat? we don't question the republican campaign, because when they do this, it shouldn't have been done any differently. >> they should have seen, everybody saw it coming, that republicans were going to make obama the ab tras around their neck, and they all seemed ill-prepared to deal with that attack. they talked about kentucky race, but it was all over the country where they were just scrambling and doing this tap dancing that just screamed lack of leadership, so i think one of the things they should have done is figured out the obama piece and how to spin it in a positive
fashion. they, i think, you know, republicans, yes, they ran on making obama the bad guy, and they got the most help from democrats. who turned that into a self-fulfilling prophesy, and then you had, you know, president obama who, you know, they may not have gotten the guidelines for but he was in a political quarantine for the last six or eight months, where nobodimented to be seen with a guy, so when you're shunning the guy and rejecting the guy, what do you expect the message voters are going to get is in so i think that's where they really went wrong. they should have seen this coming. they had to say, yes, he's our guy, we disagree on things, but, you know, we're not going to treat him like he's got help si of some sort. when you saw the secretary of x
explaning this, instead of defending obama, he went out there, and 24 is what he said in every other state he went to and said, look, republicans are telling you, elect me for six years because we want to punish obama for the next two years. i never heard bill clinton defend obama. what he was saying was that math does not work. really, are you going to give someone a six year job to punish somebody else for two years, and when he went down that road, i thought, well, okay. this is really not working for them now, is it? >> so what do you tell president obama six months ago as you looked towards to campaign? >> it's -- we pick up on this point, first of all, i did agree with what maggie said and first half of what ana said, but the piece of obama campaigning is nuts. i used to do this for a living. >> no, no, i never said he
should have campaigned more, but the campaign should have scanned the obama factor. >> he had to stay the hell off the trail, which he did, other than the places that seemed safe like maryland and illinois -- [ laughter ] you know, and if he can't -- won maryland by 26 points. >> he did no harm in connecticut. >> it was a dead heat. >> yeah. >> barely hung on. >> it would have done no good, and more harm. in fact, a few times he spoke out, like when you said, i'm not on the ballot, but my policies are, i mean, this is a guy -- gifted with words as any president we have, serious, he ranks with kennedy -- not lincoln, but kennedy in the modern era, and that's not what you say. you say, i'm not on the ballot, but you are. it's you whose still discriminated against in the workplace if you're a woman and have no real right to take on that corporation in the court of law. it's you struggling to make ends meet denied a minimum wage.
make it about -- this is 101, right? >> do you think when he said that, and everybody cringed, you know, republicans did not cringe, but republicans did. >> so when he said that, was that a reflection of him being in a funk and ticked off about -- >> i can't psychoanalyze the guy. >> if president obama asks you, what the heck did i do, we're in trouble here -- >> i think the original sin was the failure on guns. i know he tried his hardest, admire him as a father and citizen for taking that on, but having -- i've lived through it, touch a king, you kill a king. you better make sure you win. even winning -- that began it. but then you have always the best politics is the best policy, right? you had obamacare, the most important initiative of the presidency, rolled out before
this midterm, right, last year, and it was a disaster. if you can't run that capably, you can't expect people to run a campaign on it. you had this huge crisis in the va. shamef ful shameful. shameful crisis. a miniscandal in the irs. on top of that, it was the style of leadership, okay? voters believe that the president is too reactive and weak. seems to me he gets to the right place on ukraine, isis, and ebola, but got there late and in a quiet way. i got angry. i said this on tv with ana. the border crisis, all unaccompanied children flooding the texas-mexico border, he didn't go there. he said, i don't do optics. i was there in denver that looked like it was leftover from the movies, do not tell me obama
does not do optics. he does it better than anyone i've ever seen. it's not just optics. you go there because you learn stuff if the bureaucracy does not tell you because you talk to border control folks, and you educate you go and you educate the country and show them they are not drug dealers. >> he was talking about the other immigrants. >> i can't keep it straight, all of the problems with immigrants. this is not a tactic. >> i don't know what it is then. >> it's actual leadership. you have to get out in front of these people. >> hooey is surrounded by a lot of people in the white house and when he said they don't do theater, they said that's right. >> he is too big for the game. >> our friend tim russert said that's right. this is reagan's last day in
office. he said i don't think you could do the job if you weren't an actor. a lot of it is theater. >> i think that the common threat and everything paul is saying, this was the case. i have never been clear after all these years of what is the president's aides and he is an inskrutible figure for many of us who cover him. there was a fundamental misread on what it meant and how much of a mandate it was and what it would mean after having a terrible relationship heading into that reelection and what it would mean for the next phase. i was listening to how the democrats should deal with obama.
it deteriorated in the lead up to the election. if you wanted an indicator, the squad started early and often and continues. to the extent that i don't know how things are going to go forward in the lame duck. things are not great between harry reid's office and president obama. there were breathtaking on the record quotes. from harry reid's main adviser. >> the panel itself is a data point. when you hear paul talk about the representative here, when you hear what he is saying about president obama, it's reflective of what happened here among democrats. and to see that there were these
problems. >> paul must have aged at this point. he reflects and learns where as a lot of people go into denial. the denial phase lasted him because i was on with him on tv. it lasted about 30 seconds. >> you have to learn from these things. i have done way more from the many losses i had than the wins. you don't obsess about the wins. most people who are really driven are driven i believe much more by the fear of failure than the joy of success. it's not an equal thing. >> they lot of a congressional race. i thought obama was going to win the nomination because he lot of a house race and like bill
clinton did. this is a landslide. i agree with all of those who say we jump way too early to 2016. let's jump. i want to ask is jeb going to run. i want to ask how if he sees any competition for hillary clinton coming out there and which he takes that is good for her or any primary competition is bad for you. on the start with jeb and take it from there. >> i hate this question more than i hate the root canal i got this morning. look, jeb bush and i have to give you the caveat that he is my friend and my tenant. his office is we owned the biltmore hotel in miami. i see him all the time and we
talk like normal people. we don't sit around and talk, just politics. i think jeb is today where he wasn't in 2008. he wasn't in 2012 despite many people asking him to consider running. he shut it off immediately. today he hasn't shut it off. he has been transparent in saying where his head is. he is seriously considering it. he set a timeline for himself and this year and the beginning of next year. doesn't mean you will know. i may know. it means that he will have decided and it will be -- if he makes an announcement, it will be until until the first quarter or so of next year is my guess -- under national skrurt
aging room with wine and meat. it's a very, very weighty question for somebody that is in a good place and is fulfilled and happy and making money and gets to spend time with his family and see his grandkids. it's a very weighty question, but the answer is i don't know. i don't think he knows, but he is seriously considering it and he is serious about it. >> most parents with people who regard jeb bush as a former governor, we have someone who regards him as a tenant. small d democratic. >> i don't know either. i hope she will. and i have never -- seen the
kind of early support for a candidate. it's not just positive. from people who were not even born. it's remarkable. having said that, i am in the camp that said first she will have that and second that's a good thing. the marks between hillary and barack obama. they improved each other. why the partnership worked when she went into government. i saw her the day after she got out of the race. the day after, she was really admiring of obama because she likes toughness. is he tough enough? she resolved that. who, i don't know.
wasn't war and anti-wall street. george h.w. bush os cuprosecute war and won it in 100 years. pat buchanan got 38% against him. anybody can. i'm serious. a third of the vote in my party will go against him. one thing it will do is force her to work through the question of obama. i think that's a lot easier. you can't run from him. my own view, i spent all of 2012 to help to reelect him. he has done a ton of good for the country. like all presidents, he had a 6th year dip. he is winding down the bush wars, killed osama bin laden and i think he won a latin grammy. nobel peace prize.
i think she would have to work that through in a primary. it would come from the left who are also dissatisfied with president obama. i think it's good for the party and good for her as a talent. it's a pain in the check and no normal person likes to be attacked. >> i think that. >> there is transferring her soon. >> i think she is right that i think jeb bush has been straight forward about the process and his brother had a remarkable quote. i think he wants to be president and i'm not sure he wants to run for president. that's true of probably everyone. not all of us will run for president. in terms