On March 6, the Atlantic Council in Washington hosted a presentation and discussion on “Human Rights Abuses in Russian-Occupied Crimea” that featured a report by Andrii Klymenko, chief editor of the Black Sea News and chairman of the supervisory board for Maidan Foreign Affairs. The discussants included David Kramer, senior director for human rights and human freedom at the McCain Institute, and Mark Lagon, president of Freedom House; the moderator was former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst. The transcript of the presentation and discussion was made available on March 12 on the Atlantic Council website, www.atlanticcouncil.org. This report focuses on the second portion of the discussion that featured questions from the audience and commentary from the panelists. (Part 1 of this report appeared in the March 29 issue.)
PARSIPPANY, N.J. – During the question-and-answer session following Andrii Klymenko’s report and commentary by David Kramer and Mark Lagon, Ambassador John Herbst asked: “What do you see as necessary for the West to do to stop Mr. Putin in Crimea and beyond Crimea?”
Mr. Kramer stated: “It would be a mistake in my view, to differentiate the sanctions, even though the sanctions have been done in different iterations. It would be a mistake to lift the sanctions as long as Russia controls any part of Ukrainian territory, and I would include Crimea. It is not just about the Donbas, Donetsk and Luhansk. It is about Crimea, too. If we don’t recognize the annexation, then we should keep the sanctions in place until Russia gets out of Crimea. So I think it may take a while. We just have to do it as long as it takes.”
Mr. Lagon noted: “…to have the idea that somehow it’s the best policy for stability and realpolitik to just accept as fait accompli what’s happened in Crimea, that’s only going to invite more real instability and threats to human rights.”
Mr. Klymenko added: “Sooner or later, we’re going to come to this creation of an anti-Putin coalition, sooner or later. We can define it differently. We can say anti-imperial, anti-totalitarian, but I think that we’re going to get to that. And if we have the mutual feeling that we actually eventually come to creating this coalition, I think all of us have to start thinking seriously about it.”
Audience questions
Myroslava Gongadze of Voice of America, asked: “Andrii was talking about expropriation of properties, Ukrainian properties in Crimea. What is the amout of – how would you assess the amount of expropriation? [What is] the value of that expropriation?”
Mr. Klymenko said: “We’re talking about billions of dollars.”
Ms. Gongadze added, “One also has to think of roads, infrastructure of all sorts, electrical transmission lines, water lines, sewer lines, military bases, natural resources in the ground, whether it’s rocks, minerals or whatever. I mean, everything that was stolen has to be counted. And I would suggest that the number is not in the billions, but it’s in the hundreds of billions. Just the hydrocarbons themselves in the territorial offshore waters of Crimea are in excess of $100 billion. And I would suggest that that’s something that should be pursued very aggressively in courts. The shareholders of Yukos won a $50 billion judgement on the property that was expropriated from them with respect to Yukos. Here we’re talking about a lot more property. And I think it’s a front that should be pursued very aggressively against Russia because it’s very tangible.”
Mr. Klymenko continued: “…I absolutely agree with your opinion. I’m trying to find the ways how to actually do it, because I think that without getting to work on this issue [within] international structures, we wouldn’t be able to do it on our own. We have to talk about fair consulting firms who actually can value the price of all that. And another factor is the price of business, the losses that businesses had. And so we really have to talk to high-level professionals on these estimates. So definitely, we’re talking about a trillion dollars and more.”
Mr. Kramer commented that within the diaspora community there are good lawyers who would donate their time to take this case to the European Court of Human Rights. “And I think the sooner it’s done, the better, so that Russia understands that on every front they are facing pushback on their efforts to take over.”
Ambassador Herbst added: “It’s important that the United States and Europe ensure that they have the laws in place so that Ukraine – both the government and Ukrainian citizens – can seek justice, commercial justice, for expropriated assets. And this is something that people who are supporting Ukraine should make sure is in place.”
John Kunstadter of Radzima Photo, reminded the panelists: “…In 1993, when then-Moscow Mayor [Yuri] Luzhkov talked about expelling people of Caucasian origin from Moscow; in 1995, when then-Foreign Affairs Minister [Andrei] Kozyrev used the same Nuremberg language that [Vladimir] Putin used last year to talk about the so-called Russian right over its so-called compatriots in Estonia, there were crickets in Washington and in Western Europe. So this goes back way beyond 2007-2008 with Putin’s speeches in Munich and Bucharest. It’s a longstanding problem and we’re seeing the results.”
Mr. Kunstadter asked the panelists their suggestions for the best way to get the mainstream media to refrain from simple transmission of disinformation from Moscow and to understand the price Ukraine has already paid and the danger ahead.
Mr. Lagon cited the need to reconstitute Western capacity for broadcasting and media, adding: “Some people consider it entirely passé to have things like Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, old-school, we can rely on the private sector. We need to have a concerted effort to have public-sector messaging about the truth, and then we need to make sure that that diminution of space for objectivity in the media that was used by Putin in the case of Ukraine and Crimea does not seep more widely.”
Mr. Kramer noted the concerns from Lithuania on Russian media pressures within the country, and highlighted the need to counter that with a software mentality that information is vital for preventing future Crimeas.
Mr. Klymenko suggested that people target mainstream media outlets, urging them to move their offices from Moscow to Kyiv. Secondly, specialists in media issues need to analyze how Russian disinformation affects people. Citing a discussion between social psychologists and psychiatrists, Mr. Klymenko explained how long it would take for a pro-Ukrainian non-Crimean Tatar person to change his or her views after being immersed in Crimea. The psychiatrist estimated it would take between three and four months for a person to adopt pro-Russian views. Russian propaganda will come to dominate Western minds, and we need to define where is the military propaganda, Mr. Klymenko said.
Ambassador Herbst added: “…the West as a whole has been very slow in understanding the challenge that Mr. Putin is casting down. And we’re still operating somewhat under the old, comfortable paradigm that Moscow can and should be a partner for the West.” This has been why the governments of the U.S. and Europe have been slow to clearly identify what is happening, he noted.
“This is evident, for example, when the Obama administration refuses to call what Moscow is doing in Ukraine an invasion. They use the old Nixon word ‘incursion,’ which he used to describe his operation in Cambodia. And in fact, correspondents for elite publications have said to me, we partly take our leads from what Western governments are saying,” Ambassador Herbst pointed out.
He continued: “But the West is slowly waking up to the fact that the greatest national security challenge on the planet today is not that ragtag bunch of terrorists ISIS, but the Kremlin – the Kremlin pursuing revanchist policies. But you might say it’s important for us to encourage both Western governments and Western media to speed up their understanding, because the Ukrainian people are paying very heavily the price for this slowness of perception.”
Russian propaganda, Mr. Kramer added, has four main target audiences: the U.S., where it has not worked well for Mr. Putin or Russia; Europe, which has political parties like Marine La Pen’s National Front Party in France that took $10 million from Mr. Putin – “we need to figure out how to get the Europeans to understand that Russian money is corrupting their systems”; countries along Russia’s borders, particularly where there are Russian populations, but “as we’ve seen in Ukraine – and in part thanks to Putin – Ukraine is more united than its ever been,”; and the Russians themselves, demonizing the West and the U.S. as threats, as well as internal political opponents such as Boris Nemtsov, which indicates “that some Russians might take into their own hands to do something about it, and it becomes not just a propaganda issue, not just an information war, it can become a security problem.”
“…At the end of the day, it’s the regime that’s using it. Information is a means. It’s the people, as John [Herbst] said, sitting in the Kremlin that are a threat to us, and we do have to recognize and deal with that in a much more serious way,” Mr. Kramer said.
Ivanna Bilych, general counsel for Razom for Ukraine, asked about the rules that countries are to follow since Mr. Putin’s actions have dismantled the post-second world war security order, the Helsinki Final Act, the U.N. Charter. With Russia as a permanent U.N. Security Council member with veto power, how is Ukraine to legally fight its case in the international arena? Also, how should the West respond to Russia pressuring China to make payments to Russia instead of Ukraine, with which they had contracts in “violation of international law, of contracts and everything we know, everything we’ve been starting and trying to build so hard?” Ms. Bilych also informed the panelists of a report by Razom on Crimea and an actual manual [unknown what kind] for the people on the ground.
Mr. Lagon answered the first question, noting that Europe is the epicenter of the most established norms in terms of security, in terms of freedom. “The brazen seizure of territory and then the implications for political freedom are crucial. If we cannot get it right in Europe, how can we hope to get it right globally?”
Mr. Klymenko added: “…So if the United Nations, let’s have an example, has to be fixed, meaning – we need to change the situation when the veto right of Russia makes no use of this organization. So if we can’t change something like that, we need to think of a new format, so a new organization. And we have to think that Russia wasn’t actually invited to be in the U.N., but it’s more like a joke.” As for the China issue, Mr. Klymenko noted that he is not a specialist on China, but that China would not likely go against the whole international community and would not go against the United States.
Mr. Kramer added that the lack of criticism of the China move “gave the impression that the United States was pivoting away from Europe. And as Mark [Lagon] said, we can’t afford to do that.” Russia, he continued, “views democracy and aspirations of people to live in a rule-of-law based society as a threat. China’s willing to work with authoritarian regimes. It’ll also work with democracies. Russia much prefers authoritarian regimes, because those are the ones it’s most comfortable with. That’s what it is, after all. And so that’s why I think Russia is, right now, a bigger threat than China is.”
Mr. Lagon added, “Let me just say my dear friend and I don’t entirely agree on that, and I just want to say that from Freedom House’s perspective, I think there is a significant concern beyond ISIS and Russia as a third center for pushing for, you know, an illiberal new order in China. That’s my own view.”
Ambassador Herbst added: “…I don’t think you have to worry about China in this context because they will do what’s in their own interest, and their own interest is to sell as much as they can and buy as much as they need, wherever the source. And Mr. Putin’s bad not just in Ukraine, but also for Russia, as evidenced by his willingness to sell gas cheaper to China than to Europe as a way of somehow getting back at Ukraine. And China will take full advantage of this.”
Davinca Lupa, an audience member, asked about the process of Westerners wishing to visit Crimea, and the threat of nuclear weapons being based in Crimea.
On the nuclear issue, Mr. Klymenko explained that in Soviet times Crimea was used as a nuclear weapons base. “So when Russia actually rebased – launching two big units to Crimea, they used this chance to bring also the nuclear supplies as well. So it’s there – it’s there right now.” Militarily, Russia has brought in new technologies, new military supplies and a lot of military units. This is a very serious issue and it actually changes the global security balance.
Going to Crimea, those from Ukraine need a special document, Mr. Klymenko said, and foreigners can technically go, but Ukraine border officials will view a visit to the occupied territory as an act in support of Russian occupation. From a tourism perspective, we believe that there should be a real economic blockade there. Mr. Klymenko’s organization monitors the shipping in the Black Sea that docks in Crimea and Russian flights. He supported that the main tourist companies of the world stopped cooperation with Crimea. U.S. firms stopped doing business in Crimea on March 22, 2014, soon after the resolution was passed by Congress.
Ambassador Herbst supported continuous monitoring of Western organizations and companies that are doing business in Crimea, including cruise ships that are landing in Sevastopol. Adding, “Someone should be keeping track and someone should be leveling suits against them to make sure that Ukraine or Ukrainian owners of property in Sevastopol and elsewhere get the advantage of the visit of those trips – of those ships to Sevastopol.”
As an example, Mr. Herbst noted that the Mrs. America pageant was proposed to be held in Sevastopol, and an attorney needs to notify them that they must make “payment to Ukrainian authorities and Ukrainian companies whose assets are being used.”
Mr. Kramer noted that a French businessman who is a supporter of Mr. Putin wanted to open a theme park in Crimea. “…He should also be added to the sanctions list, in my view.”
Mr. Herbst continued, American actors or companies who shoot films there, “they should be put on notice.”
Sharyn Bovat, a writer for the blog Voice of a Moderate, asked how bloggers can expose the inner workings of the oil and gas sectors in Europe and how Russia plays a role in these countries. Mr. Klymenko noted that Mr. Putin is instigating a war in the Nagorno-Karabakh region between Azerbaijan and Armenia to stop a pipeline project that could shut Russian gas out of a pipeline network that would stretch from the Caspian Sea to Turkey and on to Europe. Perhaps more news needs to be brought to the fore on this issue, Mr. Klymenko noted.
Irene Stevenson of Conflict Risk Network explained her organization’s work in identifying and mapping corporations that are active in occupied territories, especially in Crimea. “There’s no question there was a lot of pressure to start exploring some of the fields that are right off the coast [of Crimea]. And I think that there’s going to be a lot of pressure from U.S. and European oil companies who have the technical expertise and the technical equipment that the Russian companies actually use when they’re exploring the far north in Russia, and that’s one of our expertises that we bring to the oil field. And so I’m wondering what we are doing as a community to keep the pressure on those oil companies so they don’t lobby to get rid of the sanctions.”
Mr. Kramer noted that the sanctions have prohibited even the exploration of new fields in Crimea. “Exxon, however, is still very much active in Russia. BP, you mentioned, they’ve just hired John Browne, again, a former head of BP, and so, you know – and Robert Dudley, has had his own experience with Russia. These people just don’t seem to learn.” Companies that engage in business in Russia do so at their own risk, “and when they run into trouble, we should remind them they shouldn’t come crying to the United States government for help.”
“In terms of [oil and gas] development off Crimea, it would be sanctioned from everything I can tell,” he added.
Ms. Stevenson pointed to the lobbying in spite of sanctions. Mr. Kramer added: “The key will be to make sure that we keep the sanctions in place, not just through the end of this year but well beyond, until all of Crimean territory is returned [to Ukraine], until reparations are paid, and that of course, includes Crimea.”
In a closing commentary, Mr. Klymenko explained: “As an economic expert, I would actually offer a free consultation for you. Forget about your Russian contracts. Forget it, because the global trend – the analogy could be the following: Hitler seized the Czech Republic, and at that time, for example, some English firm says, well, we have our business there, we were working there, so what should we do in this occupied territory? …The ghost of war is in front of your business, one has to understand at first the threat of the war. Otherwise, the time will come when all of your projects, business plans, they actually become nothing in the face of the loss of the territories and others. So I think business has to understand the seriousness of the global situation.”