U.S. Department of State Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, Ambassador Kurt Volker, expressed hope that Russia would finally decide to stop the war in Donbas no matter who wins the presidential and parliamentary elections this year.

He added that, like in any democracy, “we don’t know who’s going to win until the election takes place.”

“In this case, we really don’t know who the winner will be,” the Ambassador noted. “If you look at the polling data coming out of Ukraine, there is no candidate that is polling above the high teens.”

“Again, stressing that Ukraine is a democracy, we will work with whatever democratically-elected leader emerges after the election,” Volker said.

He added that the United States continues to support Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, as well as safety and security for all Ukrainian citizens “regardless of ethnicity, nationality, or religion.”

“I hope that no matter who is elected as president of Ukraine and also no matter how the parliamentary elections come out later in the year that Russia decides finally that it’s trying to end the war and bring about peace,” the U.S. Special Representative said, noting that Washington is “committed to doing everything that we can to facilitate it as well,” adding that he means further talks and development of any peacekeeping and security forces that would be needed to keep civilians safe.

Ambassador Kurt Volker told reporters that he had met with EU diplomats and that new measures against Moscow were under discussion if the sailors were not released.

“We had discussions with European colleagues in the past few days . . . The EU is looking at additional sanctions as well. Nothing has been agreed yet,” he said.

Below is a full rush transcript of the press conference by Kurt Volker, U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations.

Ambassador Volker: It is the 31st of January, meaning that tomorrow will be February and we are entering a month where we are really looking at five years now from Russia’s takeover of Crimea and its claimed annexation of Crimea later after that in March. So this conflict which started there has been going on a long time.

The fighting in the Donbas started two and a half [inaudible], the initial takeover of some governance buildings in March of 2014, but that was followed by much larger-scale fighting the six months after that. And that fighting continues to this day. We still have artillery, mortar fire, sniper fire. This year the reports we have is that nine people have died simply crossing the boundary between the occupied area and the government-controlled area in eastern Ukraine. So this is a conflict that still exercises a significant humanitarian toll.

The Minsk agreements remain the framework for resolving the conflict and restoring the territory to Ukrainian control and restoring peace and security. Thus far, they have not been faithfully implemented. We coordinate very closely with France and Germany, which lead the Normandy Format, to urge implementation of the Minsk agreements, but we have not seen an effective ceasefire, we’ve not seen a withdrawal of Russian forces or the withdrawal of, or the removal of the illegal armed groups that Russia has created there. So it continues to be a very dangerous situation for the population and casualties continue to mount.

In addition to that, as you’ll remember, in November we saw further escalation of the conflict as Russia claimed unilaterally to control the Kerch Strait, blocked Ukrainian naval vessels from entering the Sea of Azov, attacked those vessels, boarded them, and arrested the sailors.

Russia continues illegally to hold these Ukrainian sailors and illegally is charging them with crimes under a civilian code, seeking to illegally enter Russian territory, which is not the case. So Russia has just continued to sustain its aggression against Ukraine.

The reports that we see are that Russia intends to continue to hold these sailors at least until April, which puts it on the upside of the Ukrainian presidential election. That just gives the impression that again, it’s more of an act of policy, a political act by Russia to hold these sailors and use them as a pressure point on Ukraine, rather than there being any actual legal basis for their detention.

The United States and our allies in Europe, especially France and Germany, continue to work very closely together. We continue to urge implementation of the Minsk agreements, particularly a ceasefire and everything possible to facilitate humanitarian relief. The French and Germans have consistently put forward what they call a winter package of humanitarian measures that would alleviate some of the suffering for the population. We fully support that as well.

Unfortunately, the Russians have continued to occupy the territory. The Ukrainians can’t access it. And the population there continues to suffer.

Question: You referred to the presidential election but your own intelligence said the other day they are not sure that President Poroshenko will be able to win. So first of all, do you share that assessment? And second of all, how important is this for you? Are you confident you can work with whoever comes next and who will still be in control? Thank you, sir.

Ambassador Volker: The starting point here is that Ukraine is a democracy and they will be having an election and in a normally functioning democracy we don’t know who is going to win until the election takes place. So in this case we really don’t know who the winner will be.

If you look at the polling data coming out in Ukraine, there is no candidate that is polling above the high teens. No one getting 20 percent or higher. So it’s very unpredictable at this stage who might actually win.

Again, stressing that Ukraine is a democracy, we will work with whatever democratically elected leader emerges after that election. We continue to support Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and we continue to support safety and security for all Ukrainian citizens, regardless of ethnicity, nationality or religion.

Thus far, we have not seen progress in getting to peace and security because of the continued occupation by Russia of eastern Ukraine and Crimea. I hope that no matter who is elected as President of Ukraine, and also no matter how the parliamentary elections come out later in the year, that Russia decides, finally, that it’s time to end the war and to bring about peace.

If Russia makes that decision, we are committed to doing everything that we can to facilitate that as well, in negotiations and in development of any peacekeeping and security forces that would be necessary to take care of the population while the Minsk agreements are implemented.

Question: Earlier this month the Russian Foreign Ministry said it had agreed to a Franco-German plan to allow observers to go to the Kerch Strait and to monitor what is happening there. Can you first tell us, do you support that initiative? Secondly, who do you blame for the fact that there have been none of those observers deployed so far?

Ambassador Volker: It’s a very important dimension to what’s been going on lately. The Russians made a unilateral assertion of control of the Kerch Strait and through that effectively controlling access to the Sea of Azov, and that is a violation of their bilateral agreement with Ukraine from 2003 on joint sovereignty over the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait, and there are disputes. We know from imagery, we know from video on YouTube, we know from what the Ukrainians have reported what happened in terms of the blockage of the strait, the pursuit of the Ukrainian vessels in international waters, firing upon them, and those sailors still being held by Russia.

Russia disputes some of the elements of this account, so I think having international monitors there in addition to Ukraine would be a very positive element to both create more eyes on the situation to record what Russia’s actions are and its unilateral claims of sovereignty, and to deter perhaps violence such as occurred in November.

So I think the idea of monitoring is a very important one, and I think it’s a very commendable step that France and Germany have offered to do that.

The problem arises when you get to the context in which that happens. The OSCE has the monitoring mission for Minsk implementation, which is along the so-called ceasefire line. It’s not really a ceasefire that holds, but along the so-called ceasefire line the OSCE monitoring mission is there to record what’s happening and then also to try to get access throughout the rest of the occupied area. That is a vital mission, but it has a lot of challenges executing its mandate.

The idea of monitoring in the Sea of Azov and the idea of monitoring in other areas under Ukrainian control that are not part of the conflict area is something where there have been some disputes.

The Russians argue that there is no mandate for the OSCE to allow monitoring in areas other than that mandate defined by the OSCE for the ceasefire line, so they’re saying that the French and German’s offer, while they would be acceptable to have more monitors, can’t monitor what they are intending to monitor.

The Ukrainians are also a bit skeptical. They, I think, welcome the idea of the international presence, but they don’t want to see them in a position where they are subordinated in some way through Russian political oversight which is what would be the case in the OSCE where Russia has, as a member of the OSCE, has oversight over the monitoring mission as well, and has members within the monitoring mission.

I think the best solution here would be for international monitors to be present in uncontested Ukrainian territory and on Ukrainian vessels at the invitation of Ukraine. There’s no need to go beyond that since this is not part of the conflict area. This is simply having a little bit more of a monitoring presence and visibility of what’s happening in uncontested Ukrainian territory.

Question: Martin Sajdik of OSCE he made his proposal of this UN OSCE mission like with military and police component of the United Nations. So what is the U.S., what does the U.S. think about this proposal? And what should, I mean how should it be done so that it can help in any way?

Ambassador Volker: The fundamental issue here is whether Russia is willing to accept an international peacekeeping presence to replace the Russian forces and create genuine peace and security in the Donbas. If Russia is willing to do that, that would happen under a UN mandate and the UN would be able to establish a general environment of security which would allow for the implementation of the Minsk agreements and bring the conflict to an end.

In doing so, there are additional functions that would need to be performed. So peacekeeping would be under UN auspices, but you would need to have, for instance, policing and cooperation on policing. You would need to have an election administration. You would need to have some coordination on civilian function and coordination between the UN peacekeeping operation on the military side and the civilian administration.

So I think what Martin Sajdik is doing is outlining some of these elements that would need to be coordinated, and suggesting that some would be carried out by the OSCE, others would be by the UN. And I think the concept, you’d have to look detail by detail, but in principle, this is a useful concept.

The problem, however, is that we do not have agreement from Russia to the whole basic idea of there being a peacekeeping force to begin with. Russia continues to deny that it is occupying the territory. It continues to insist that there only be a protection force for the OSCE monitors rather than a genuine UN peacekeeping force. And that protection force would therefore be continuing to have to negotiate access to freedom of movement with the Russian-installed authorities that are there, the so-called “Peoples Republic”, just as the OSCE is having to do today.

So Russia is really not allowing any kind of movement forward in developing a peacekeeping presence to begin with, and that’s the fundamental problem.

If you had movement on that, some of the ideas that Martin Sajdik has produced, division of labor between the OSCE and the UN on certain roles, are all very sensible things to consider.

Question: Ukrainian sailors who have been attacked in the neutral waters and arrested by Russia. The fact that there were no significant sanctions for Russia for this act of aggression, does it mean that Russia can act with impunity?

Ambassador Volker: No, it doesn’t. I visited Brussels in December, had meetings with the EU and NATO, have had a number of follow-up meetings here in Washington, and I can say that both the United States and Europe are looking at what additional measures we should be taking if Russia fails to return the sailors and continues to make these assertions of control of the Kerch Strait as it is.

The U.S. in the natural course of business will be reviewing the Crimea sanctions in February. That comes up on an anniversary. The EU is looking at additional sanctions as well. Nothing has been agreed yet, and they have a minister’s meeting coming up, also in February.

In addition to that, we’ve seen other steps such as ship visits; the UK had a naval ship visit in the Black Sea in January. The United States will be having one coming up as part of the natural course of business. So I think having this presence and support for Ukraine and a rejection of the Russian claims has continued, it’s important, and Russia can’t assume the there’s any acceptance of its position and we do call on Russia immediately to release the sailors and to try to come back to a diplomatic track for resolving this crisis.

Question: I was just wondering if you have any meetings with Mr. Surkov planned in the foreseeable future.

Ambassador Volker: We exchanged some messages around the new year, and I would very much like to resume our discussions.

As you know, after Russia attacked the Ukrainian Navy and imprisoned sailors, President Trump canceled his meeting with President Putin and I therefore ended up canceling my meeting, my intention to meet with Mr. Surkov and others in Moscow in December. I’d very much like to get back on track and to do that I hope that Russia will act quickly to release the sailors and give us a basis for moving forward.

I don’t have anything more on that yet, but we’ll continue to be in contact about what a future meeting would be.

Question: Is there an estimate as to how many Russian troops and how many as you called it created by the Russian troops is in Ukraine at this point in time? An estimate.

Secondly, you speak only, and the Europeans and the Germans for that matter, only ever about the 24 sailors. Now the Russians are continuing to block access of ships for sometimes a few days, both from Mariupol and Berdyansk. Whereas Russian ships that go to the Russian ports like Taganrog are not impeded.

Are there also sanctions on the menu considered that you would consider sanctions against these Russian ports if the free access is not further assured?

Ambassador Volker: First of all, you’re absolutely right. While Russia has not blocked completely the access of Ukrainian vessels or other commercial vessels to Ukrainian ports, they appear to be implementing a policy of a deliberate slow-down, and slowing down the passage means adding cost to the commercial shippers, adding cost to the Ukrainian ports, which is disruptive to the economy in the region.

Again, it’s ironic that Russia claims to be interested in the well-being of the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine when all of its actions are harmful to the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine.

As for sanctions, what you are suggesting, sanctions that apply either to Russian ships that are serving the Russian ports on the Sea of Azov or otherwise addressing Russian ports on the Sea of Azov are things that I know have been brought up in the European Union. We’ve had some recent consultations with some of our EU partners just in the past few days where the topic was discussed. I know this is among the basket of options that is being reviewed in the United States as well. We don’t have any decisions on these things yet, but it is exactly in that space that I think we need to be thinking.

Again, with a view towards urging change. The goal is not sanctions in itself. The goal always is to open access to create better conditions, and what we would really very much like to see is a return to free and open movement in and out of the Kerch Strait to the Sea of Azov for all the ports that are there.

Question: Aside from the Kerch Strait have there been any recent significant or observable ships and levels of Russian equipment or troops along the line of contact or the Ukraine-Russia border? Perhaps not, but if so, what conclusions do you draw from that? Secondly, Ukraine’s Defense Minister, Stepan Poltorak, has recently doubled down again on Kyiv’s goal to accelerate its efforts to join NATO by attaining allied standards and getting the MAP, the Membership Action Plan, by 2024. Could you please reiterate what the U.S. position is on that and the prospect? Thank you.

Ambassador Volker: First off, I think it’s always a little bit misleading to ask — I’m not criticizing your question, but the framing is off when you say have there been recent increases in the, you know, Russian military activity or presence on the borders, the ceasefire line, Crimea or elsewhere, because you don’t need to have recent increases to have an extraordinarily large Russian military presence. They’ve been there already and they are there, and this includes fighter aircraft, it includes attack helicopters in Crimea, it includes ground forces in the occupied parts of Ukraine, it includes naval forces and riparian ships in the Sea of Azov, it includes massive Russian ground forces in Russian territory surrounding Ukraine. So there’s enough military capability there for Russia to do whatever it decides, so it doesn’t need to have a recent increase for this to be a dangerous situation.

So the U.S. position remains that we support Ukraine’s eventual membership in NATO. This was decided at the Bucharest Summit in 2008 and we stand fully behind that. We work very closely together with Ukraine on reforming its defense capabilities and defense establishment.

As you know, there was slow movement on that for several years after 2008. It accelerated after 2014. But there’s still a long way to go.

Being a NATO member is not only a matter of military reform, but also establishing a strong and vibrant democracy, a healthy economy, good relations with neighbors, interoperability with NATO, civilian control of the military, and so on and so on. So there’s a lot that Ukraine still has to do to be qualified to become a member of NATO, and NATO at this point does not have a consensus to offer a firm invitation, but the door to Ukrainian membership in the future remains open. And we remain committed to working together with Ukraine to help them achieve those standards.

Ambassador Volker: I just always want to come back to the humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine. There are over a million and a half displaced persons, which is the largest number of displaced persons in Europe, from a war in Europe since World War II. There were over 10,000 killed on the Ukrainian side, which is the largest number of people killed in a war in Europe since the wars in the Balkans in the ‘90s, and it is still going on. So this should be seen as a matter of urgency to stop the conflict and then the population that remains is suffering all kinds of hardships from heating, energy, reliable water, freedom of movement, access to pensions and access to government services, cell phone communications, food and security, medical conditions. It is really a severe stress on the local population there.

So we call upon Russia and anyone fighting in eastern Ukraine to put the priority on the well-being of the people that are there, and let’s bring this conflict to an end. Thank you.

Ambassador Kurt Volker is a leading expert in U.S. foreign and national security policy with some 30 years of experience in a variety of government, academic, and private sector capacities. Ambassador Volker serves as Executive Director of The McCain Institute for International Leadership, a part of Arizona State University based in Washington, DC. He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, a Senior Advisor at the Atlantic Council, and a Trustee of IAU College in Aix-en-Provence, France. He is a consultant to international business, a member of the Board of Directors of CG Funds Trust, and had previously served as Managing Director, International, for BGR Group.

The US will begin its withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia on February 2, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Andrea Thompson told NATO officials in Brussels.

Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the treaty – originally signed by the United States and Russia in 1987 – comes after negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland, fell through on Tuesday. Thompson claimed that Russia is in breach of the treaty, and that Moscow’s 9M729 missile system violates the terms of the agreement.

Under the agreement, signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, land-launched nuclear missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 km are banned. Washington claims, without evidence, that the 9M729 has a range greater than 500 km and is therefore in violation of the treaty.

The under-secretary of state for arms control and international security, Andrea Thompson, confirmed the US intention to withdraw from the treaty after a meeting with a Russian delegation in Geneva, which both sides described as a failure.

“We explained to our Russian counterparts specifically what they would need to do in order to return to compliance in a manner that we can confirm, verifiable destruction of the non-compliant system,” Thompson said.

“To see the missile does not confirm that distance that missile can travel, and at the end of the day that’s the violation of the treaty,” Thompson said in a phone briefing for reporters.

“We’ve spent years trying to get something – anything – out of the Russians on INF. The Russian offer of an exhibition of the 9M729 is not enough, but it is something,” Alexandra Bell, a former senior state department official who is now senior policy director at the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

“Perhaps it is a foundation on which to build. Not trying to take advantage of this opportunity is to leave diplomatic options on the table and that’s just foolish.”

Daryl Kimball, the head of the Arms Control Association said: “If the INF is terminated on 2 August, there will be nothing to prevent Russia from deploying nuclear missiles that threaten Europe and the Trump administration will have no hesitation in pursuing the deployment of INF-prohibited weapons in Europe.”

Below is a full rush transcript of the press conference by Andrea L. Thompson, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.

Under Secretary Thompson: I’m Andrea Thompson.  I’m the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security at the State Department.  We arrived at NATO headquarters today in Brussels and just a few hours ago I briefed our NATO allies with a topic of great importance, and that’s the INF Treaty.  

You may know that yesterday I led an interagency delegation.  We flew to Geneva and met with the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov.  They requested a meeting in December and we said yep, we’re willing to listen.  So we took a high-level delegation to discuss the INF Treaty with my Russian counterpart.

Our message was very clear to the Deputy Foreign Minister and his team, that Russia must return to full and verifiable compliance with the INF Treaty.  I’d also like to remind folks that maybe haven’t followed this topic as closely, that this is after more than five years of our U.S. and allied diplomacy on INF.  This is across multiple administrations, again, and five-plus years, both with us and NATO and others.  In that time we’ve raised repeatedly the Russian non-compliance on over 30 occasions.  So again, some folks may have the tendency to think this is a new problem.  This is not a new problem, this is a new solution, over 30 occasions.

You also might remember December 4^th Secretary Pompeo announced the U.S. finding that Russia is in material breach of the obligations under the INF Treaty.  Again, NATO has strongly supported this announcement.  They’ve been very clear that it’s incumbent on Russia to return to compliance.

So yesterday in Geneva, again, we outlined our U.S. concerns with Russia’s non-compliance.  We explained to our Russian counterparts specifically what they would need to do in order to return to compliance in a manner that we could confirm, against verifiable destruction of the non-compliant system.  And I’d like to reiterate that.  Verifiable.  Some of the measures that we can probably get asked about and talk about here today are not able to be verified, so it’s important to uphold the arms control regime that we have verifiable results.

Disappointingly but not surprising, we weren’t able to break any new ground yesterday with Russia.  And I’d also like to remind folks that this continued violation, it’s not only a European threat but it’s a threat to global security and our allies are at risk because of it.

Again, as I mentioned, we approached yesterday’s meeting in good faith.  I told the Deputy Foreign Minister I was there to listen.  I was there to listen to how they were going to get back into compliance, and this was their opportunity to do so.

We reaffirmed that the INF Treaty, all parties must comply.  It’s in the national security interest for the United States, but Russia continues to violate the treaty and we continue to abide by it.  That’s what’s been [inaudible].  We also saw no indications based on previous discussions, previous engagement and yesterday’s meeting that Russia is choosing to return to compliance.

I also reminded them for arms control to serve its purpose, for arms control to work, all parties must comply and violations have to have consequences.  Again, they’ve been in violation for over five years.  We’re now taking action to remedy that.

I also reminded the Deputy Foreign Minister that Russia has a choice.  They can either have a non-compliant system or it can have the INF Treaty, but it can no longer have both.

Again, I’m open to your questions, and I appreciate you making time this evening to talk about a very important topic.  Thank you so much.

Question: Minister Lavrov was saying today that Moscow offered Washington virtually to see this discussed missile of Russia, but United States refused to do so.  He actually accused USA that Washington is not willing to go into some substantial talks. What do you think of that?  And what do you think will be the future after United States will withdraw from the treaty?

Under Secretary Thompson:  Thank you, No surprises in the rhetoric from my Russian colleagues.  To see the missile does not confirm that distance that missile can travel, and at the end of the day that’s the violation of the treaty.  They have a system that overshoots, extends the range allowed in the INF Treaty.  To see a static missile, to see a static launch system does not tell me how far that missile can fly.

Also, seeing a test that the Russian military would control, again, they will select their own system and missile.  It needs to be verifiable.  All the offers that the Russian delegation made yesterday, none of them, and I reiterate that, none of their “transparent measures” were verifiable under the arms control regime.

The future of this treaty, again, the ball’s in Russia’s court.  They have until February 2^nd under this initial announcement.  If they’re not back in compliance by February 2^nd, we will suspend our obligations.  They have six more months after that to get back into compliance.

Again, the next step’s on Russia.  The point you make of Russia asking for more dialogue — five years we’ve been meeting at the table.  Met again yesterday.  And their story has not changed.  It’s the continued false reporting and non-compliance.

So we’re not, the opportunity, again, we came and talked yesterday.  It’s time for their action.

Question: what’s going to happen next when it comes to a U.S.-Russian arms control and strategic stability dialogue?  If there even would be a regular dialogue on these issues between the two countries.  I mean the Guardian reported in October, as you probably know, that the NSA, that Ambassador Bolton was opposing the resumption of these talks.  So my question is, is the United States ready and willing to engage Russia in the strategic stability dialogue? And as a follow-up to that, what are the odds now, would you say, on extending for another five years the New START?  Has anything changed because of the INF Treaty? 

Under Secretary Thompson: Again, I’d just like to remind folks that we’re also meeting our obligations to the New START Treaty.  Both Russia and the U.S. met our central limits in February, and we continue to meet our obligations.  We have a couple more years on that treaty before it’s due to expire and as we’ve mentioned, the discussions yesterday were INF related, not New START related.  But I did raise with the Deputy Foreign Minister the importance of, again, the arms control regime only works if you abide by the treaties.

So folks want to talk about New START, and I tell folks they’re not linked to one another, but when you have a party that’s violating one treaty it doesn’t lend much promise to the subsequent treaty.

And in reference to the strategic stability talks, we’ve had meetings with the President, Secretary Pompeo’s met with the Foreign Minister, the National Security Advisor has met, I’ve met with my counterpart.  So the door’s open.  We’re having discussions with our Russian counterparts.  Again, we just met again yesterday.  So the door’s open.  There’s been dialogue.  There just hasn’t been positive action from the other side of the table. 

Question:  The New York Times reported back in October that for the past four years the United States has argued that Russia is in violation of the INF Treaty, but that President Barack Obama chose not to leave the agreement because of objections from the Europeans and particularly from Germany.  Can you confirm this?

Under Secretary Thompson:  I would not speak for the previous administration.  I’d like to speak for the here and now.  Germany’s been a steadfast partner.  The President’s engagement with Chancellor Merkel was an important part of the discussions that we’ve had.  We continue to engage with my German counterpart, and Germany’s been a steadfast ally.  I appreciate the support, both from my counterparts in the government and as well from the public.  So the information sharing has increased and we continue to stand with one another.  So I appreciate the support from my German counterpart.

Question: if you can give me a political opinion on the Vladimir Putin’s visit to Belgrade these days, and indeed for his visit to Serbia, actually to Serbia.  The Russian President told some Serbian media that the U.S. policy plays a destabilizing factor on the Balkans.  And then the Prespa agreement signed between Greece and Macedonia has been signed under foreign pressure and the Republic of Macedonia has been forcefully drawn into NATO military alliance. Will you please tell me your opinion on Mr. Putin’s latest comments against the U.S., the EU and NATO policies on the Balkans?  Again, for the Serbia media.  Thank you.

Under Secretary Thompson: President Putin’s comments didn’t pertain to the INF.  I can tell you that I’ve had the great opportunity to not only serve in the Balkans, but also visit the Balkans with the Vice President during my time as a national security advisor.  Again, an important ally and continued development in the region, also engaged heavily with this administration with Macedonia.  You saw the successful vote.  Again important partners in the region, this administration continues to support all of the improvements in that area and I don’t give much credence to the rhetoric and propaganda from President Putin.

Question:  Could you elaborate a little bit on what you said the verifiable assurances.  You mentioned missile range.  So how exactly do you verify how far a missile flies?  Thanks.

Under Secretary Thompson: Without getting too much into the technical portions of this, and again, much of it is classified as you can imagine.  I would really encourage the Russians to actually tell us how they’re going to get their system back into compliance because they know the system best.  We did raise that yesterday and said the missile range that we know from testing and our intelligence and information that we’ve shared with our partners and allies, that it violates the treaty.  They know their system best.  They know exactly what they need to do to get that system back into compliance.

Question:  After the United States withdraws from this treaty will Washington deploy missiles prohibited by the treaty in Europe?

Under Secretary Thompson:  Alexandr, we’re suspending our obligations.  We suspend our obligations if, again, if Russia does not get back into compliance.  So we’ve been abiding by the treaty.  We’ve been not doing the research and development that our Russian counterparts have.  So we will continue to abide by the treaty up until that date, and then we’ll make the decision whether we will suspend our obligations.  Thanks so much.

Question:  if you could maybe speak a little bit about the overall mood at the discussion table.  Other than disagreement over the treaty itself, how does the overall Russia-U.S. relationship at the moment reflect in those discussions?

Under Secretary Thompson:  Thanks, Carlo.  I will tell you that it was a very professional mood.  It was candid.  We were very open with one another.  Again, I opened with the Deputy Foreign Minister, said I’m here to listen.  I brought a senior team, he did as well.  There wasn’t a time constraint.  It wasn’t hey, we’re only going to meet for 30 minutes or only going to meet for an hour.  We met as long as it took to get to a place where we felt that at that point we weren’t going to make movement on either side.  But it was a professional conversation, it was a candid conversation, and both teams sent high-level delegations, sent the right people to come to the table with the discussion.

Question:  You had consultations yesterday with Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister.  Are you planning to have more consultations before Russia’s INF compliance deadline in February?

Under Secretary Thompson:  Thanks Maria.  We don’t have any currently scheduled engagements.  Again, we just had one yesterday, so we need to give, and Russia did request time to go back and assess some of the things that we presented.  We have not had an offer to meet again.  There are other, I will tell you, I have a broad arms control portfolio that also covers nonproliferation and political/military affairs, so there may be engagements where the Deputy Foreign Minister will be there.  That may happen in the next couple of weeks.  But we don’t have any INF specific meetings scheduled at this time.

Question:  Was there any discussion of any kind of quid pro quo?  The Russians have complained about U.S. missile defense launchers I believe that could launch offensive weapons.  Was there any discussion of the mutual verifiable checks and balances on those systems?

Under Secretary Thompson:  Yes, Julian.  They did raise their counterpoint.  Interesting that each of the systems that they raised are in compliance with the treaty.  And we went step by step and gave them the information.  They’ve already had that information, raised it in previous engagements, but we raised it again yesterday on why the systems that they raised are compliant and again have gotten, we need the validation, but our NATO partners have also been very consistent in that as well.  But our systems continue to be in compliance with the treaty.  But they did raise it.

Question: Could you please elaborate on the term that you used, the suspension.  What does a suspension mean?  Does it that you do not quit the treaty? 

Under Secretary Thompson:  Thanks, Mikhail.  Suspension means we suspend our obligations under the treaty.  So what that means is we can conduct the research and development of systems that previously were not allowed under the treaty.  So our obligations are suspended under the treaty.  Thank you.

Question: If the INF Treaty is terminated, will the United States support or entertain mutual restrictions on the deployments of INF missiles that threaten Europe or may be deployed in Europe as a substitute for the INF Treaty?

Under Secretary Thompson:  Thanks, Kelsey.  We didn’t talk hypotheticals in this meeting.  We talked facts and data and what it would take to get Russia back into compliance.  So we didn’t raise any hypotheticals.  I will leave the missile and defense planning to my Department of Defense counterparts which I’m sure are working this hard.

Question:  Did the United States consult with the UK and other NATO partners ahead of the decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty?  And what views have they expressed on the decision?

Under Secretary Thompson:  Thanks, James.  I wouldn’t want to talk withdraw because we haven’t had that discussion.  So yes, we did consult with our key partners and allies, the UK being one of many, on what that means, and continue engaginh.  We had additional meetings again today.  So the UK continues to be a steadfast partner for us.

Question: I understood that next Wednesday there will be a NATO-Russia Council.  So my question would be what do you expect of the meeting?  And do you think you could convince Russia to give in with the help of the Russian allies?

Under Secretary Thompson:  Thanks, Christoph.  Tentatively, I don’t know if the date has been set for the NATO-Russia Council.  Again, we talked about that today.  Our NATO counterparts are appreciative it is another opportunity to engage.  The Russians, again, have had recent information.  They can take the information from yesterday.  We also shared some of the steps with our NATO counterparts, so it’s another opportunity.  I hope Russia uses this opportunity to talk about how they’re going to get back into compliance.

Question:  Can you please elaborate on what is your overall assessment of Russian missile forces today?  Because there are many reports of real modernization of Russian weapons now including statements of Mr. Putin about new arms.  What do you think of that? 

Under Secretary Thompson: I think they continue to violate arms control treaties.  I think they continue to put partners and allies at risk.  I think they continue to field battalions that aren’t authorized under the treaties that they’ve signed.  And I think they should be more truthful in their assessments in doing so.

Question:  I would like to know whether there are any talks of including additional countries into treaties of arms control like China or Pakistan, if it came up at all?  And if it didn’t come up, can you just comment on the need to talk not only with Russia but with many more countries?

Under Secretary Thompson:  Thanks, Christoph.  No, the INF Treaty, we’ll continue to engage with the partners that are signed by the treaty, and it did not come up in our discussions with our Russian counterparts.  We do have, obviously, relationships with a myriad of countries.  For the INF Treaty, the discussions, we’ve tailored it to that with the discussions yesterday in Geneva.

Under Secretary Thompson:  Again, it’s an important audience as our partners and allies and what they read and hear.  And so I appreciate you making the time to help with clarifying any questions you may have, and taking the time this evening to seek more insight on the INF Treaty.  It’s an incredibly important treaty, both to the United States and to our partners and allies, and again, it’s up to Russia to get back into compliance.

But truly, thanks for making the time tonight, everyone.

Andrea L. Thompson, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security

Andrea L. Thompson was confirmed as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security on April 26, 2018. Before her arrival at the Department of State, Under Secretary Thompson served as the Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President.

Prior to her tenure at the White House, Under Secretary Thompson served as the Director of the McChrystal Group Leadership Institute. She brings more than 25 years of service in the United States military to her role, including deployments on multiple combat tours, such as: Intelligence Directorate/J2 Chief of Staff in Afghanistan, Senior Intelligence Officer for MultiNational Division (North) in Iraq, as well as tours in Iraq, Bosnia, and operational and strategic deployments around the world.

Under Secretary Thompson also served as the National Security Advisor for the Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security and Senior Military Advisor to the Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee.