Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 16th, 2017

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 47, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our study of the situation in eastern Europe and central Asia 25 years after the end of the Cold War.

We had a chance to meet as a subcommittee yesterday, and you have the report before you. I just want to know if everyone is okay with approving that report before we get started with our witnesses.

I'll give you a minute to read it. It talks about a couple of individuals we were hoping would come before the committee. We're going to send out an invitation to them and see if they can work with our schedule. We'll be looking at the main estimates, and we were going to bring in someone to give us a little bit of an overview on that. We had written letters to the chairmen of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, our equivalents in the United States, to invite them to Ottawa. Those letters were sent to you electronically over the last day. Those are the four items on the subcommittee that we discussed yesterday.

Does anyone have any issues with that at all? All right, then. If there are no issues, I'll call the question.

All those in favour of adopting the subcommittee report?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We'll now get to our witnesses.

Gentlemen, we're starting a little bit of a study on the whole issue of eastern Europe and central Asia and their relationship with Russia. I've looked at both of your bios, and both are—I won't say “overqualified”—very distinguished. We're looking forward to hearing from both of you today.

What we normally do is start with your opening testimony, and then we'll go around the room asking questions back and forth between the opposition and the government.

I have Chris Westdal, who is a former ambassador. We're very much interested in hearing what you have to say. Then we have Piotr Dutkiewicz, who has extensive knowledge on Europe and its relationship with Russia.

We'll start with your opening comments, sir, then we will move over to Chris, and then we'll have questions.

[Prof. Piotr Dutkiewicz, Professor, Carleton University, Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. It is an honour to be here.

I would like start by saying that, first of all, the challenge is to understand where the other country is coming from. I spent more than 30 years working in and with Russia. I am not Russian—I'm Polish by origin—but I will try to present key components of Russia's perspective, and later, during the discussion, maybe we will evaluate them.

Let me present my points, which answer four questions. Each question will take me about one to two minutes.

My first question is: Who does Russia need today?

Russia needs those who will not interfere in her domestic affairs or impose alien values, whatever values she sees as alien. She needs those who will provide markets for Russia. In this sense, North America, including Canada, is not a priority area. The priority area here is the vast territory of Eurasia. She also needs those who contribute to her security. Russia seeks partners in areas such as nuclear non-proliferation, terrorist pandemics, and economic security.

My second question: Who needs Russia? Russia is significantly alienated these days. There is a bit of Russian hysteria around.

My answer is those who want to mitigate any unilateralism and that's the base for Russia's relations with China; those who want to keep an open alternative to the supply of oil, gas, and weapons; those who don't need strategic allies who tie their hands, but are looking for realpolitik support, where power is the key word to understanding Russian policies; those for whom security and stability trump democracy; and those who want more traditional and less diluted sovereignty. So, no matter how hard we try to alienate Russia, Russia will not be isolated. Russia will find her own friends because of those points.

My third question is: What does Russia want from global and regional players, including the European Union and those countries in eastern Europe that belong to or form part of the European Union?

First, Russia would like to have influence in the belt around her. You may define this belt around her in different ways—zone of influence or zone of strategic influence—but the most important thing for Russia is to exercise some influence in the immediate zone around her. Second, Russia would like to keep control over all domestic, natural, and human resources, and she's fiercely opposing an influence in this area. Third, Russia wants to renegotiate relations with the U.S. and with the EU. In this sense, Russia is, you might say, a revisionist state because she would like to revise what she feels is unjust in the behaviour of many countries toward her during the last 20 years. In other words, Russia is trying to be at the table, rather, not on the menu of big powers. Fourth, Russia would like to keep NATO at a healthy distance, and in some cases penetrate NATO-exclusive zones, and have some influence over them. Then, Russia would like to keep the U.S. and EU confrontation at an affordable level. “Affordable level” means without destruction of her vital interests, both economic and political.

In this case, and in the same manner, Russia would like to keep China content, but without the illusion of being a strategic ally to China. Russia would like to assure the Chinese that in the case of a deepening China-U.S. confrontation, Russia will take the Chinese side. There's no doubt about this.

Also, Russia would like to be an alternative to the NATO security umbrella as a potential partner, and the Syrian example comes in here. Russia would also like to participate in and, if possible, reorganize some alternative regional organizations that have a global reach, such as the Eurasian Economic Union, or a Russian effort to adjust the work of the OSCE.

The last question is: What are Russia's options with the EU, Ukraine, and central Asia?

First of all, Russia would like to weaken the coherence of the EU, because Russia prefers bilateral relations, not multilateral relations. It is much more comfortable with face-to-face negotiations rather than multinational forums.

Russia would like to slowly break the barriers imposed by sanctions since 2014. It builds, very patiently, selective relationships and dialogues with those that favour re-engagement over continuing isolation. In Europe, at least two countries come to mind: Hungary, which makes a certain adjustment to the Russian point of view, and Slovakia. I believe there are some hopes that after the election, France will become another, closer, partner to Russia.

On Eurasia and China, for Russia, I believe the future is located in central Asia. In central Asia, Russia prefers to resign from universal values and rather focus on delivering public goods jointly with China—roads, stations, and schools—and create a new patronage network in which Russia plays the significant role as a more significant partner in a Eurasian Economic Union.

To some extent, Chinese initiatives and the new Silk Road, One Belt, One Road, are overlapping with the Eurasian Economic Union. In this sense, it is a form of creating quite a big market for Russian goods jointly with China.

Also, Russia knows her limits, and the limitations related to her own economy and her own political influence over there with some countries that belong to the Eurasian Economic Union definitely trying to be as independent from Russia as possible, and we have seen this even in recent weeks in relations between Belarus and Russia.

For Ukraine, which is my last point, the only option available at the moment is the Minsk agreement, but possibly revised, because it was signed at a time when the political situation was different. To my mind, Russia will be looking for U.S. support to revise this agreement or to force Ukraine to comply with certain aspects of the agreement.

To conclude this brief introduction, I would like to say that Russia is not for beginners. Russia is a complex country, and easy solutions do not work. In the case of Canada, we are not a Russian priority, and Russia is not our priority. However, for many reasons—and I hope that we'll come back to this during the discussion—Russia is important for Canada, not only with regard to the Arctic, but for other reasons.

Our current policy towards Russia is haphazard and zigzag. It's supposed to be re-engagement; it is not. It's one step forward, two steps back. We don't have a policy towards Russia and we may be, as I said, rather not at the table, but on the menu in case of the closer of U.S.-Russia relations.

Thank you very, ladies and gentlemen.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Westdal, I'll turn the floor over to you, sir.

[Chris Westdal, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honour for me to address you.

Since I retired from our foreign service 10 years ago, I have sustained an active interest in Russia and in Ukraine, and I'll focus on them today. You should know that I have served on the boards of public companies with interests in both of those countries and that I now chair Silver Bear Resources, a Toronto Stock Exchange listed public company that's completing a silver mine in Yakutia, Russia's Sakha Republic. I'm also a member of the board of CERBA, the Canada Eurasia Russia Business Association, both the national board and the Ottawa board. CERBA promotes trade and commerce across the region. I don't speak for any of those outfits here today, I speak only for myself.

Your subject is vast and, as you've found, it necessarily includes Russia, because to talk about the security, political, and economic circumstances of eastern Europe and central Asia without talking about Russia is to talk about everything in the room except the elephant. I'll use my few minutes to talk first about the popular narrative of Russia as an aggressive marauder, second about Ukraine on the brink, and third about the plans for a détente of President Trump, and, along the way, about Canada's roles in all this drama.

First, then, the common wisdom isn't wise. I encourage you to take a hard, skeptical look at the prevailing ubiquitous western narrative that Vladimir Putin is a demon, killer, thief, dictator, war criminal, and fixer of U.S. elections—choose your epithet—and that the Russia he's led for 17 years is a malignant, aggressive marauder bent on domination in eastern Europe and far beyond.

Now, Vladimir Putin is no choirboy. No great power leader ever is. The president of Russia, though, is many other things. He's a patriot; he's a patriarch, a “tsar lite”, say; formidably intelligent, informed, and articulate; pragmatic above all; a proven leader, tough enough to run the vast Russian federation; ruthless, if need be, in serving its interests; and genuinely popular. Putin is also, proudly, a spy, and deception is an essential tool of espionage. So, of course, those little green men were Russian, but, of course, Moscow won't say so. As Putin explained at a Munich security conference, “We're all adults here.”

What's more, beyond its leader, there is much we may not like in Russia's domestic politics or in the unapologetically brutal few-holds-barred way it wages war, but still, I find the current narrative about Russia's role in the world overblown, full of exaggeration about Russia's record, about Russia's motives, and about Russia's capabilities, while blind to Russia's obvious economic, demographic, and security vulnerabilities across its vast southern flank—11 time zones—and its necessarily defensive strategic posture.

That popular narrative is also, notably, ahistorical, ignoring the provocations that have led to what's labelled Russian aggression: the vast expansion of NATO by leaps and bounds—NATO, a congenitally Russophobic nuclear military alliance—the unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, messing with Moscow's perception of its nuclear security; the forward deployment of missile defence in Romania and Poland to counter a threat from Iran, we'd have Moscow believe; and the billions spent stoking anti-Russian sentiment and regime change in Russia's neighbourhoods.

There has been much blood shed since the Maidan picked a fight with Moscow three years ago, a fight it can't win, but the facts remain that Kiev can't make the increasingly distracted and exasperated west care more and can't make the Kremlin care less. We are not going to fight World War III for the Donbass, we've made that clear, and the Kremlin, under any sensate leader, is not going to stop defining the geostrategic orientation of Ukraine, all of Ukraine, as a matter of fundamental national security interest.

Call Russia's reaction “aggression”, if you will, but as we grew NATO by leaps and bounds, what did we expect? Three years ago, what were we thinking? That Russia would just roll over in the face of an obvious strategic calamity and meekly agree to rent historic Sevastopol, the Crimean base of its Black Sea fleet, from a member of NATO?

Like them or not, theory aside, major powers' zones of influence are real. We Canadians know that—we live in one. In the real world, Kiev has about as much freedom to undermine Moscow's security as Ottawa has to undermine Washington's.

The second is Ukraine is on the brink. Take a hard look too at the catastrophic circumstances of Ukraine, and at the record and results there of a quarter century of massive, sustained western intervention, including our own. That record must surely lead you to humility about our comprehension of Ukraine and about our ability to mind its business.

In brief, the western colony in Kiev, the vast multi-billion-dollar project there, of which we're a vocal part, is a heartbreak, a corrupt oligarchy, unreformed, highly centralized without even elected regional governors, littered with arms now, full of hard men without jobs, ready recruits for private militias, and dominated by ethnic nationalists bitterly opposed to vital national and regional reconciliation.

More of the same from us will make no sense. If you're in a hole, stop digging. At the very least, do no more harm. Our record proves that we don't know how to solve Ukraine's problems. They'll have to be solved, or not, by Ukrainians.

For President Poroshenko, meanwhile, let us spare a prayer. With a 13% approval rating, the economy in tatters, and U.S. and EU support faltering, Poroshenko knows he has to do a deal with Russia. He has to implement the Minsk peace plan, yet he dare not even say so. The Rada is adamantly opposed. In Kiev these days, federalism and decentralization, which are at the core of the Minsk implementation, are four-letter words.

We should do what we can to help him. We have very little influence in Moscow, and it will be some time before we recover much, but we do have some clout in Kiev. We should use it to counter lethally exclusive ethnic Ukrainian nationalism, to which we should stop pandering. We should use it as well to suggest such proven Canadian solutions as inclusion, accommodation, and federalism.

We should use it to promote essential reconciliation with Russia. No country in the world has more profound interest in good relations with Russia than Ukraine, none with more interest in east-west accord, none with more to gain by an end to this ruinous east-west tug of war, none with more interest in a better fence between Russia and NATO, a “mending wall” in Robert Frost's phrase, and a new deal in which Ukraine, rather than having to make an impossible choice, gets to trade well with both Europe and Russia, while posing a security threat to neither, a deal in which Ukrainians get the space, peace, and quiet they need to reunite, to recover, to reform, and to succeed. By all means, bilateral and multilateral should be our goal.

The third is Donald trumps the world. I haven't checked the headlines for the last few hours, so what I say may be far out of date.

Despite entrenched bipartisan opposition, President Trump has appeared determined to achieve a measure of détente with Russia, to fight ISIS with it, to trade with it, to seek peace in Ukraine with it, generally to lower the temperature and tension, to head off more Cold War.

For the good of all concerned, especially Ukrainians, we should help him do so. Far from sacrificing Ukraine, as critics will claim, détente would permit Ukraine's salvation. We should help Trump deter Russia, too, responding to his demand and that of General Mattis yesterday, forcefully in Brussels, at NATO, his demand that we spend more on defence. In my view, we have to do so anyway, if only to build a navy and Coast Guard fit for the three oceans we have to sail.

As NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg insists, there is no contradiction between détente and deterrence. One day, one may eliminate the other, but we're not there yet. NATO is not going away anytime soon. It will go on balancing and deterring Russian power and ambition. Meantime, as we do our bit for deterrence, we should also do our bit for détente, and we should keep our priorities straight about the two.

As defence minister Sajjan said at last year's NATO summit in Warsaw, even as we agreed to reinforcements on Russia's border, the work “behind the scenes” to re-establish a NATO dialogue with Russia really is the most critical piece. “We need to make sure the tensions are reduced because it doesn't help anybody.” Exactly. Détente is a lonely cause these days, and Donald Trump may turn out to be the worst friend it ever had, but the last thing our sorry world needs now is this new cold war we're waging. We have too much else on our plates and we face far greater threats to our security and welfare than any posed by Russia, which faces them too. The Cold War blighted a half of the 20th century. If we can avoid it—and I think we can if we try harder—let's not let cold war blight any more of the 21st.

Thank you for this chance to share my views and offer my advice. I look forward to our discussion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

And an interesting discussion I think it will be, so thank you very much.

We're going to start with the opposition. Mr. Kent, you have the floor.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thanks to both of you for appearing before us today. I'd like to start with President Trump's remarks yesterday. They're being analyzed in a variety of ways, whether or not as sincere, that Crimea should be returned to Ukraine and Russia should withdraw, or a compensation for the national security issues that the president has had for the past week.

When the committee travelled last month to Latvia, Ukraine, Poland, and Kazakhstan, there was concern in the first three countries I mentioned about the rumoured or speculated warm relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Yesterday's remarks, and Mr. Putin's response to President Trump, would seem to say that friendship is not likely to flower anytime soon; as did Secretary Mattis' confirmation testimony on what he would have advised had he been advising the president when Crimea was taken and eastern Ukraine was invaded.

This is a hypothetical question. How are both of you reading the Trump-Putin relationship as it may be, or, Mr. Westdal, from your point of view, it has to be?

[Chris Westdal]

It's a good question.

In terms of what to make of it, as I said, I think Donald Trump might end up being the worst friend détente ever had. However, when he said yesterday that Crimea should be returned, I would take that as kind of an opening position in what will be a negotiation. The fact is that as the Russians made clear, and as is simply clear to anyone observing the situation, Crimea, short of war, will not be forsaken by Russia, period. That's simply a fact that Ukrainians have to live with and that we have to live with too. Now, the legality of all that might be for decades in dispute, but Crimea will remain with Russia. I think that is also genuinely the view, and was genuinely the view, of the people in Crimea. It was taken without a shot. It was low-hanging fruit. Kiev had lost the allegiance of Crimeans.

As to the relationship between Trump and Putin, I think that's been a kind of figment of the imagination and fevered journalism. There are all these references to a bromance. They've never met. Putin said that he thought Trump was “colourful”, or “bright”—that word was mistranslated to be “brilliant”, but Donald Trump is colourful—and that he hoped he could deal with him. Trump has returned the compliment, but there's no bromance there.

It's now quite clear that there has been incoherence in the Trump administration's comments about Russia, most recently comments about Crimea. The new American ambassador to the United Nations appeared to contradict the president. Mattis's testimony was quite at odds with what the president was saying. I do think, though, that Trump will defy all of the enemies of détente. Just bear them in mind. It's a vast array that goes right from all the angry Democrats....

I do worry that east-west relations are now entangled in a very bitter partisan fight in Washington. That's very dangerous. But all the foes of détente include the Clinton Democrats, all of the neo-cons who abandoned the Republicans and joined Hillary Clinton, such as McCain and Graham, and the entire large, powerful military industrial complex that we all know exerts enormous influence. There's a huge range of opposition to what Trump would try to do with Russia, but I think he's defied a huge range of consensus before and will try to do so again. I hope he succeeds.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Professor.

[Prof. Piotr Dutkiewicz]

I would agree with all that Ambassador Westdal said. I have a few comments.

First, at this moment Russia-U.S. relations are at the very, very low end. I had the chance to personally ask President Putin about this in October, and he said that this is the lowest level of trust between Russia and U.S. since the collapse of the Soviet Union. My first point is that it could only be better, not worse, because worse is not feasible at this moment.

Second, President Obama's policy towards Russia was a new version of the policy of containment: let's contain Russia, surround her, impose sanctions, and demand a change in behaviour. It did not happen. So the policy of containment is not an option for the Trump administration. That's the second point.

My third point is that I believe that people around Trump see Russia as a rather big player, with certain weaknesses in economics and in the region. Its military capacity, however, is formidable at the moment, and so is its diplomatic capacity, cyber-war capacity, and other elements. All this brings Russia to the level of a potential partner in certain issues that only big countries can discuss. Among these are nuclear non-proliferation, terrorism, maintaining strategic balance, and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, there are also actions in the area of anti-terrorism. These will be probably the areas that are going to be discussed.

My fourth point is that when Trump became president, many Russians cheered, including Russian politicians. In recent days, however, I see something very interesting: withdrawal from being so cheerful. They started to realize that there is a lot of unpredictability coming from the White House—zigzag, sometimes contradictory, messages. Also, if there are not contradictory messages, the messages that are clear are not very pleasing to Russia. There is a danger of putting a wedge between Russia and Europe, Russia and China, and the Russians will not sacrifice their relations with Iran or relations with China because of the current policies of the U.S. administration. This is a potential impediment to the successful conversation that will take place probably in May this year.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Kent and Mr. Dutkiewicz.

We're going to move over to the government side.

Mr. McKay, we're going to start with you, sir.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

My thanks to you both for your testimony.

Professor Dutkiewicz, the first question I have is with respect to your analysis—what Russia needs, who needs Russia, what Russia wants from the EU, and what are Russia's alternatives. What seems to be left out of your analysis is the sphere of influence nations want. It seems to me to be abundantly clear that Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland want is a close relationship with NATO and a close relationship with the EU. While that may be a disappointment to Russia, it is something that, in western thought at least, needs to have a paramountcy above an empire that might wish to expand itself.

I'd be interested in your comments. There's not going to be a war started over Crimea, I agree with that, but that's what's driving the fears on the eastern side of Europe.

[Piotr Dutkiewicz]

You're absolutely right. You're talking about Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. With the exception of Finland, all of them are former members of the Bloc. They have fears. They have challenges, but also their fears are grossly exaggerated.

They are exaggerated. If you ask them what the security challenges are for their country, they will all answer that the biggest challenge is Russia. That is the common answer. But they have different challenges, and the animosity towards Russia is rooted in something else.

The animosity towards Russia is rooted not in Russia itself. It's rooted in at least four reasons for why they feel vulnerable. They feel vulnerable and they would like to have the EU, and in particular NATO, be present there to help them. To me, they are displacing a lot of their fears, because the challenges are in their domestic policies.

First of all, in all of those countries there has been significant social disappointment in the last 20 years with regard to how the transition has been handled. This disappointment provides support for xenophobia, populism, and political cynicism and to a certain extent anti-Russian views.

Second is distrust of the system. Many people in those countries don't trust the system to deliver what it is promising. Instead of dealing with this, they replace this challenge with the Russian threat.

Third is fear of unpredictability. All those countries that you mentioned, except maybe Finland, are facing a lot of economic unpredictability and political unpredictability.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Let's say for argument's sake that you're right.

[Piotr Dutkiewicz]

For them NATO is the solution. We want to have NATO because NATO will save us from Russia. Be realistic: there are a couple of hundred NATO soldiers. There is no way that the soldiers are a counterweight to the Russian weight, but in the Polish or the Lithuanian mentality it's a very significant step and probably they should be there if only for the sake of peace of mind.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Let's take your argument at its face value. There has been some disappointment with joining the EU and the economies have not performed, but that doesn't mean there's a huge rush to embrace Russia in any way, shape, or form.

In fact, if I were a leader in any one of those countries, I would be a little bit nervous about Russian military exercises up and down my border. That would get me concerned. I realize that standing up battle groups in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia is a glorified speed bump to any incursion. The Russians could take them in half an hour, but they couldn't hold them. They can't hold them.

The history of those countries is simply a pathway to exploitation and oppression. So their history, their economic circumstances, and their realistic assessment have led them to what I'm hearing you say is an irrational fear. I'm not sure that it is actually irrational.

[Piotr Dutkiewicz]

Russian troops will not be in Warsaw or in Lithuania. That is nonsense, but I agree that there is a fear and this fear somehow has to be contained. We don’t like to have allies that are fearful and, therefore, unpredictable.

Most recently, the chair of one of the Polish dominant parties, PiS, asked for a nuclear Europe and he was rebuked immediately, within five minutes, but this is a level of fear that can lead to certain actions that we might pay dearly for.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Ambassador.

[Chris Westdal]

I wanted to add that I think you've put your finger on it. It's not the taking. It's the keeping. I think one should take a look at not only what Russia has done, but what Russia hasn't done over the last decade.

Briefly, if you start in Georgia, Russia could have taken Tbilisi. It was ready to do so. The tanks were there, but it parked its tanks 30 kilometres away for a few days just to make the point and then it drove them home.

Similarly, in eastern Ukraine, Russia could occupy the Donbass in four hours. We won't speak of Crimea. It's worth noting that the separatists in eastern Ukraine were asking Moscow for the same annexation that Crimea had had and Putin turned them down.

Similarly, it was Putin who said that we could take Kiev in two weeks, and I think that's probably true, and it's no secret. You mentioned the speed bump; despite our troops there the Russians could overwhelm the Baltic states very quickly, but they don't because the taking is relatively easy. It's the keeping. It's the cost. It's the consequences. They're obviously enormous.

It was a Lithuanian president not too long ago who said that it wasn't a question of whether we take article 5 of NATO's Washington treaty seriously. It's a question of whether Putin takes article 5 seriously, and he does, and he'd be a madman not to.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We move back over to the opposition now. Madame Laverdière, it's your turn.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank both of you for your very interesting presentations, which are absolutely essential to our reflection on this. We have to put ourselves in the other shoes and also look at the interests and constraints on the Russian side.

We have seen that there is a certain risk of escalation with NATO missions. Every time NATO increases things by 10%, there is a 10% or 15% increase by Russia.

Tuesday, we heard a witness here who had things to say that were quite similar to your statements. He spoke of the need to establish a new security relationship with Russia and he said that Canada needed to be an active part of that, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding White House policies.

Would you have any comments to make on that?

[Chris Westdal]

I think you're quite right. There is a risk of escalation. I think, as I mentioned in my remarks, we need a better fence between Russia and NATO. The fence that has existed is highly problematic. How to search for that new deal that I spoke about, from Canada's point of view particularly, it's going to be done multilaterally. Our contribution is going to be that if you're NATO...or through the OSCE. I do hope that our delegations at NATO and at the OSCE are much more active and imaginative than they were for a decade.

It's at the OSCE where you find the most relevant mandate to try to explore a security arrangement that includes all of Eurasia. That's where I think we should put our effort.

As Professor Dutkiewicz was pointing out, Russia is a vast and complex subject, and one needs to try to comprehend it; and that requires an investment, an investment in understanding, an investment in more links with Russia than we now have. Our links are very meagre.

I hope that you have talked to Russians. I don't know whether you were free to visit Russia. I think you probably were, but as I said you can't understand what's going on in that region without understanding Russia. It is the elephant in the room. It is the major power. It is by far a more important capital than any of the others in the region, and yet we have imagined that we would isolate Russia.

One of the costs we pay for that is that we don't have any influence, and the other is that we really don't have any understanding. I don't see how we can possibly have a vision, some vision of Eurasian security, which it is our duty to bring to NATO and the OSCE, if we deprive ourselves of any understanding of Russia.

To try to understand Russia is not to approve of Russia; it is to try to understand what you're talking about.

[Piotr Dutkiewicz]

I agree. The threat of escalation is definitely there. Russia will be responding to anything they perceive as a threat. They perceive a lot of friendship things as threats these days. It is becoming an unpredictable spiral that may end up with a much worse situation than we are in at the moment.

I would second Ambassador Westdal's statement that we don't know enough about Russia. We've cut our ties with Russia since 2010. Even before the Crimean war we cut our co-operation with Russia, our technical co-operation with Russia by 2008, I believe. We don't have any serious leverage in Russia at the moment, but we had and we spoiled this all in a beautiful way with destruction.

Until 2008 the Canadian ambassador travelled to all the Russian regions, and it was welcomed. There was a feast of goodwill for Canadians. Now there is none.

How can we rebuild this? What can be done in a reasonable way? I'm not saying we should all love Russia, not at all. I'm saying build reasonable, reciprocal ties that will make Canadian interests more visible and help Russia, not isolate it and ignore it. That would probably be what we should do, knowing all the differences, the deep differences between us and Russia.

Also, we should help Canadian companies. There are Canadian companies that lost a lot during the sanctions. Our economic turnover is $1.3 billion, that's $300 million. In one year we have less economic activity than in one day between Canada and the U.S. This is how it looks at the moment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

That's all the time we have. We're going to move to Mr. Saini for his round.