Thank you very much.
I just want to reference the statement about no alternatives in the Minsk agreement, and just note that I was quoting the Ukrainian minister of defence, who stated that in May, and also President Putin and Angela Merkel, who said there is no alternative to the Minsk agreement.
On the second point, the impact on the conflict, there's been a lot of careful study of this, and I would point to very respected independent expertise in the international crisis group. They have been extremely active in analyzing this conflict. I think anyone reading it would see that they have been very impartial and given criticism where criticism is due. They go back and forth, and they did a huge number of interviews with various military advisers and diplomats as to what the impact on the ground would be, and canvassed all the arguments. They came out with the view that because the dynamic on the ground is that each side must respond to a perceived military action by the other—and we're talking defensive weapons here and that's all the former NATO secretary general recommended. He said they would give no really meaningful military advantage, but they would be seen as a military step. Therefore, the separatist forces would respond and then we would have an impact on escalation, which would be exactly the wrong direction than the one we want to go in.
I also want to come back to the comment that you couldn't have peacekeepers on the line of separation, which of course is set out in the Minsk agreement, signed by all sides, because that would somehow legitimize it more than the Minsk agreement does. That just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the peacekeepers are supposed to be doing. Of course, I hasten to add that this is not the only place they need to be, but if they're going to move from a ceasefire to a more meaningful agreement, then they have to be able to make sure they can verify that everyone is living up to the Minsk agreement. That means they have to be where the forces are. This is in fact what the OSCE is supposed to be doing, and everyone has agreed to that, but they just don't have the capacity to protect themselves while doing it. That's why this whole proposal about the UN peacekeeping operations is so ingenious, because it is to provide the security and protection so the OSCE monitors can do their job.
I want to come back on a point that our other witness said about not wanting to get into a situation of frozen conflicts, and I could not agree more. No one, I think, is suggesting, or no one should be suggesting, that Russian forces would be involved in this at all. That's why, of course, I say there couldn't also be Canadian forces because a proper UN peacekeeping mission has impartial forces. I think we have learned a lot from the frozen conflicts, and I think that's what we're trying to avoid here.
Thank you.