• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Response at a UN Security Council Debate on Ukraine

U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations

Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
March 6, 2015

AS DELIVERED

Thank you, Mr. President. The challenge with these back-and-forths is that Russia has no credibility whatsoever. None. The Russian representative, months ago, in one of the first of thirty-two sessions, said that Russia had no soldiers, no heavy weapons, no presence in Crimea, and then later, not only acknowledged having a Russian presence in Crimea, but announced the annexation of Crimea – an annexation made possible with the use of military force, the use of military aggression and military forces. The pretense ends and then the facts retrospectively change. Russia said, not long ago, we would observe the cease-fire agreed upon in the package of measures to implement the September Minsk Agreements – oops – until Debaltseve decided to become a target for Russia and the separatists. And now Russia says that Debaltseve is part of the territory controlled by the separatists, even though it wasn't at the time that the package of measures was agreed upon.

Today, Russia has made the claim that the separatists have complied with Minsk in withdrawing their heavy weapons. Yet, the OSCE could not get access to the heavy weapons, so we are told to rely upon Russian claims about what the fate of those heavy weapons are – heavy weapons that Russia has provided to the separatists. These heavy weapons don't just fall from the sky. These are massive weapons systems used to fire down planes, to shoot down planes, used to bombard civilian centers, such that 500 people were killed and left in their basements to die, to be discovered by OCHA. The information that the United States has provided over time to this Council has, unfortunately, proven accurate. And indeed the facts on the ground that Russia has absorbed into its current territorial claims, the facts on the ground are the facts that we have described day-in, day-out, every one of these sessions. By contrast, the claims that Russia makes in the Council give way to new claims, at subsequent meetings, but the facts on the ground contradict the prior claims. And the same would be true with regard to claims that have been made today. The facts on the ground, which are really all that matter, and all anyone in this chamber cares about, show Russian aggression, Russia having blocked off part of someone else's country, and tried to keep it. And the only way that we have a chance of getting to peace in Minsk is if Russia leaves Ukraine and takes its heavy weapons with it. Thank you.

Second Response

I realize we're taxing the patience of the rest of the Council, so I'll be very brief, but the Russian representative has several times used the expression, "good faith." "In good faith, we this…in good faith, we that…"; that is absurd in this context.

###