TRANSCRIPT: Press Conference with President Obama and Prime Minister Rutte of the Netherlands [excerpts re Russia]

(The White House – Office of the Press Secretary – For Immediate Release – March 25, 2014)

Gemeentemuseum Den Haag

The Hague, The Netherlands

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  You’ve been criticized during this dispute with Russia as not understanding President Putin’s motivations.  As recently as last month, you and others in your administration said you thought Putin was reflecting or pausing his incursion into Crimea.  Did you misread Putin’s intentions?  And what do you think his motivations are now?

And if I could just quickly ask on NSA, when you spoke about the NSA review in January you said you weren’t sold on the option of having phone companies hold metadata and you thought it raised additional privacy concerns.  What has changed for you on that matter since that time, and do you think Congress will pass the legislation you’re seeking?

And, Mr. Prime Minister, there are leaders in Europe who have concerns about the sector sanction the President has proposed on Russia’s economy.  Do you think any of those leaders have had their concerns alleviated during their talks with the President over the past few days?  Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  All right, let me see if I can remember all these.  (Laughter.)

PRIME MINISTER RUTTE:  I have only one question.  (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  With respect to President Putin’s motivation, I think there’s been a lot of speculation.  I’m less interested in motivation and more interested in the facts and the principles that not only the United States but the entire international community are looking to uphold.  I don’t think that any of us have been under any illusion that Russia has been very interested in controlling what happens to Ukraine.  That’s not new.  That’s been the case for years now. That’s been the case dating back to the Orange Revolution.

But what we have said consistently throughout this process is that it is up to the Ukrainian people to make their own decisions about how they organize themselves and who they interact with.  And it’s always been our belief that Ukraine is going to have a relationship to Russia — there is a strong historic bond between the two countries — but that that does not justify Russia encroaching on Ukraine’s territorial integrity or sovereignty.

That’s exactly what’s happened.  And I said very early on that should Russia do so, there would be consequences.  And working with our European partners and our international partners, we have put in place sanctions that have already had some impact on the Russian economy.

Now, moving forward, we have said — and I want to be very clear about this — we’re not recognizing what has happened in Crimea.  The notion that a referendum sloppily organized over the course of two weeks would somehow justify the breaking off of Crimea and the annexation by Russia — that somehow that would be a valid process I think the overwhelming majority of the world rejects.  But we are also concerned about the further encroachment by Russia into Ukraine.

So what I announced and what the European Council announced was that we were consulting and putting in place the framework, the architecture for additional sanctions, additional costs should Russia take this next step.

What we also said, and will continue to say, is that there is another path available to Russia.  The Ukrainian government has said it is prepared to negotiate with Russia; that it is prepared to recognize its international obligations.  And the international community has been supportive of a diplomatic process that would allow a de-escalation of tensions, a moving back of Russian troops from Ukraine’s borders, and rapidly organized elections that allow the Ukrainian people to choose their leadership.  And my expectation is, is that if the Ukrainian people are allowed to make their own decisions, their decision will be that they want to have a relationship with Europe and they want to have a relationship with Russia, and that this is not a zero-sum game.

And I think that Prime Minister Yatsenyuk and the current government have shown remarkable restraint and are prepared to go down that diplomatic path.  It is now up to Russia to act responsibly and show itself to be once again willing to abide by international rules and international norms.  And if it chooses to do so, I think that there can be a better outcome.  If it fails to do so, there will be additional costs.  And those will have some disruption, in fact, to the global economy, but they’ll have the greatest impact on Russia.  So I think that will be a bad choice for President Putin to make, but ultimately he’s the President of Russia and he’s the one who’s going to be making that decision.  He just has to understand that there’s a choice to be made here.

With respect — even though this was directed at Mark, I just want to address this issue of sectoral sanctions.  So far what we’ve done is we’ve put in place sanctions that impact individuals, restricts visas being issued to them, freezes their assets.  We have identified one bank in particular in Russia that was well known to be the bank of choice for many of the persons who support and facilitate Russian officials from carrying out some of these activities.  But what we’ve held off on are more broad-based sanctions that would impact entire sectors of the Russian economy.

It has not just been my suggestion but it has also been the European Council’s suggestion that should Russia go further, such sectoral sanctions would be appropriate.  And that would include areas potentially like energy, or finance, or arm sales, or trade that exists between Europe and the United States and Russia.

And what we’re doing now is, at a very technical level, examining the impacts of each of these sanctions.  Some particular sanctions would hurt some countries more than others. But all of us recognize that we have to stand up for a core principle that lies at the heart of the international order and that facilitated European union and the incredible prosperity and peace that Europe has enjoyed now for decades.

And so, although it could cause some disruptions to each of our economies or certain industries, what I’ve been encouraged by is the firmness and the willingness on the part of all countries to look at ways in which they can participate in this process.  Our preference throughout will be to resolve this diplomatically, but I think we’re prepared — as we’ve already shown — to take the next step if the situation gets worse.

Finally, on Ukraine, I think it’s very important that we spend as much effort on bolstering the economy inside of Ukraine and making sure that the elections proceed in an orderly fashion. And so my hope is that the IMF is able to complete a package for Ukraine rapidly to stabilize their finances and their economy.  The OSCE, other international organizations, are sending in observers and monitors and are providing technical assistance to make sure that the elections are free and fair.  The sooner those elections take place, the sooner the economy is stabilized, the better positioned the Ukrainian people will be in terms of managing what is a very challenging situation.

With respect to the NSA — and I’ll be just brief on this — I said several months ago that I was assigning our various agencies in the IC — the intelligence community — to bring me new options with respect to the telephone database program.  They have presented me now with an option that I think is workable.  And it addresses the two core concerns that people have — number one, the idea of government storing bulk data generally.  This ensures that the government is not in position of that bulk data.

I want to emphasize once again that some of the dangers that people hypothesized when it came to bulk data there were clear safeguards against.  But I recognize that people were concerned about what might happen in the future with that bulk data.  This proposal that’s been presented to me would eliminate that concern.

The second thing that people were concerned about is making sure that not only is a judge overseeing the overall program, but also that a judge is looking at each individual inquiry that’s made into a database.  And this new plan that’s been presented to me does that.

So overall, I’m confident that it allows us to do what is necessary in order to deal with the dangers of a terrorist attack, but does so in a way that addresses some of the concerns that people have raised.  And I’m looking forward to working with Congress to make sure that we go ahead and pass the enabling legislation quickly so that we can get on with the business of effective law enforcement….

Q    President Obama, on Ukraine, reportedly there are about 30,000 Russian troops on the border with Ukraine.  What guarantees can you give to the people of Eastern Ukraine, to the people in the Baltic States — Moldova, other countries — that they will not be next when it comes to the Russian politics of annexation?  And with regard to that also, is this a done deal?  Is there any doubt in your mind that Putin will return Crimea to where it belongs, according to the West?  Or is this diplomatic show of force basically just to prevent another land grab somewhere else?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  On the second question first, on the issue of Crimea, it’s not a done deal in the sense that the international community by and large is not recognizing the annexation of Crimea.  Obviously, the facts on the ground are that the Russian military controls Crimea.  There are a number of individuals inside of Crimea that are supportive of that process. There’s no expectation that they will be dislodged by force.  And so what we can bring to bear are the legal arguments, the diplomatic arguments, the political pressure, the economic sanctions that are already in place to try to make sure that there’s a cost to that process.

But I think it would be dishonest to suggest that there’s a simple solution to resolving what has already taken place in Crimea.  Although, history has a funny way of moving in twists and turns, and not just in a straight line, so how the situation in Crimea evolves in part depends on making sure that the international community stays unified in indicating that this was an illegal action on the part of Russia.

With respect to the Russian troops that are along the border of Ukraine at the moment, right now they are on Russian soil.  And if they stay on Russian soil, we oppose what appears to be an effort in intimidation, but Russia has a right legally to have its troops on its own soil.  I don’t think it’s a done deal, and I think that Russia is still making a series of calculations.  And, again, those calculations will be impacted in part by how unified the United States and Europe are and the international community is in saying to Russia that this is not how in the 21st century we resolve disputes.

I think it’s particularly important for all of us to dismiss this notion that somehow Russian speakers or Russian nationals inside of Ukraine are threatened and that somehow that would justify Russian action.  There has been no evidence that Russian speakers have been in any way threatened.  If anything, what we’ve seen are provocateurs who have created scuffles inside of Ukraine.  But when I hear analogies, for example, to Kosovo, where you had thousands of people who were being slaughtered by their government, it’s a comparison that makes absolutely no sense.  And I think it’s important for everybody to be clear and strip away some of the possible excuses for a potential Russian action.

With respect to the broader issue of states that are bordering Russia and what assurances do they have about future land grabs, as you put it, obviously some of those countries are NATO countries.  And as NATO allies, we believe that the cornerstone of our security is making sure that all of us, including the United States, are abiding by Article 5 and the notion of collective defense.  And what we are now doing is organizing even more intensively to make sure that we have contingency plans, and that every one of our NATO allies has assurances that we will act in their defense against any threats.

That’s what NATO is all about, and that’s been the cornerstone of peace in the transatlantic region now for several generations.  So we will uphold that.  And there will be a series of NATO consultations.  A NATO ministerial is going to be coming up in which we further develop and deepen those plans.  But I have not seen any NATO members who have not expressed a firm determination with respect to NATO members.

Now, those countries — border countries that are outside of NATO, what we can do is what we’re doing with Ukraine, which is trying to make sure that there is sufficient international pressure and a spotlight shined on the situation in some of these countries, and that we’re also doing everything we can to bolster their economies, make sure that through various diplomatic and economic initiatives that they feel supported and that they know that we stand by them.  But when it comes to a potential military response, that is defined by NATO membership; that’s what NATO is about.

Q    Mr. President, thank you.  In China, in Syria, in Egypt and now in Russia, we’ve seen you make strong statements, issue warnings that have been ignored.  Are you concerned that America’s influence in the world, your influence in the world, is on the decline?  And in the light of recent developments, do you think Mitt Romney had a point when he said that Russia is America’s biggest geopolitical foe?  If not Russia, who?

And, Mr. Prime Minister, do you think these sanctions will change Vladimir Putin’s calculation or cause him to back down?  And do you see there’s a — where do you see a Russian red line, where if they go any further, if they go into Eastern Ukraine, into Moldova, where options beyond sanctions have to be considered?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, Jonathan, I think if the premise of the question is that whenever the United States objects to an action and other countries don’t immediately do exactly what we want, that that’s been the norm, that would pretty much erase most of the 20th century history.  I think that there’s a distinction between us being very clear about what we think is an appropriate action, what we stand for, what principles we believe in versus what is I guess implied in the question that we should engage in some sort of military action to prevent something.

The truth of the matter is, is that the world has always been messy.  And what the United States has consistently been able to do — and we continue to be able to do — is to mobilize the international community around a set of principles and norms. And where our own self-defense may not be involved, we may not act militarily, that does not mean that we don’t steadily push against those forces that would violate those principles and ideals that we care about.

So, yes, you’re right, the Syrian civil war is not solved — and yet Syria has never been more isolated.  With respect to the situation in Ukraine, we have not gone to war with Russia.  I think there’s a significant precedent to that in the past.  That does not mean that Russia is not isolated.  In fact, Russia is far more isolated in this instance than it was five years ago with respect to Georgia, and more isolated than it was certainly during most of the 20th century when it was part of the Soviet Union.

The point is that there are always going to be bad things that happen around the world.  And the United States is the most powerful nation in the world.  Understandably, it is looked to for solutions to those problems.  And what we have to make sure we’re doing is that we are putting all elements of our power behind finding solutions, working with our international partners, standing up for those principles and ideals in a clear way.

There are going to be moments where military action is appropriate.  There are going to be some times where that’s not in the interests, national security interests of the United States or of some of our partners, but that doesn’t mean that we’re not going to continue to make the effort or speak clearly about what we think is right and wrong.  And that’s what we’ve done.

With respect to Mr. Romney’s assertion that Russia is our number-one geopolitical foe, the truth of the matter is that America has got a whole lot of challenges.  Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength, but out of weakness.  Ukraine has been a country in which Russia had enormous influence for decades, since the breakup of the Soviet Union.  And we have considerable influence on our neighbors.  We generally don’t need to invade them in order to have a strong, cooperative relationship with them.  The fact that Russia felt compelled to go in militarily and lay bare these violations of international law indicates less influence, not more.

And so my response to them continues to be what I believe today, which is Russia’s actions are a problem.  They don’t pose the number-one national security threat to the United States.  I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan, which is part of the reason why the United States, showing its continued international leadership, has organized a forum over the last several years that’s been able to help eliminate that threat in a consistent way….