Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 3/18/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:12 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Good early afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for being here.  Before I take your questions, I’d like to mention something.

As many of you are well aware, with over 5 million people now signed up for private health insurance plans through the marketplaces, and 13 days left to enroll this week, we are doing a March Madness enrollment push to reach our fellow college basketball fans, especially young adults, before the March 31st deadline.

Yesterday, we released our “16 Sweetest Reasons to Get Covered” bracket, and a video by the UNC and UCONN coaches.  Today, we’re lucky to have NCAA and NBA champion Shane Battier joining us to release a new analysis by HHS that looks at the economic costs and the incidence of common sports injuries like sprains and fractures.  The report finds that almost 2 million people every year suffer sports-related injuries and receive treatments in emergency departments.  And if you don’t have insurance, these types of injuries can really set you back financially.  For example, treatment for a sprained ankle could cost over $2,000.  Treatment for a broken arm could run you as much as nearly $7,700.  This data also finds that the rate of these types of injuries is especially high among folks under 25.

So this is yet another reminder of the importance of getting covered, whether you’re an athlete, a fan, or, like so many of you here, both. 

With that, I will take your questions.

Q    (Laughter.)  Take that as a compliment.

MR. CARNEY:  That’s exactly right. 

Q    Jay, on Ukraine -- Putin annexed Crimea today.  What is the definition of success if this is being labeled a test of President Obama’s leadership, as Tom Donilon mentioned over the weekend?  What is failure?  What is success?  Before, you were trying to stop something from happening; it seems that now you have to undo something.  That’s a much tougher task.  And what’s the goal for the meeting of the G7 in The Hague next week? 

MR. CARNEY:  Let me say a few things.  We condemn Russia’s moves to formally annex the Crimean region of Ukraine.  Such action is a threat to international peace and security, and it is against international law.  We would not recognize this attempted annexation.

As we have said, there are costs for such action.  Along with our partners in Europe and Japan, the United States imposed sanctions yesterday, including an executive order that gives us an expansive tool to sanction Russian government officials, entities operating in the arms sector in Russia, and individuals who act on behalf of or provide material support to senior officials of the Russian government.  You have seen some designations already, and there are more to come.

We also continue to be focused on how we can best support Ukraine.  We urge Congress to pass legislation as soon as possible that will enable us to provide Ukraine the resources it needs.  We also support the IMF’s ongoing work to negotiate a package with the Ukrainians. 

In addition, as you know, Vice President Biden was in Poland today, and he will be in Lithuania tomorrow.  To our NATO allies, our message is clear:  We have a solemn commitment to our collective defense, and we will uphold this commitment.

Lastly, I would note that today, President Obama invited his counterparts from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the EU to a meeting of G7 leaders next week on the margins of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague.  In answer to your question, the meeting will focus on the situation in Ukraine and further steps that the G7 may take to respond to developments and to support Ukraine.  As you know, the U.S. and the other members of the G7 have already suspended our preparations for the G8 Summit in Sochi.

The actions that Russia has taken, in clear violation of international law, in clear disregard for Ukraine’s constitution, Ukraine’s territorial integrity and Ukraine’s sovereignty, have not been and will not be recognized by the international community.  Those actions have incurred costs already.  They have done damage to Russia’s economy, to its currency, and to its standing in the world.  Further actions, further provocations will lead to higher costs.

The goal of our policy is to make clear that in the 21st century, in the year 2014, these kinds of actions are not tolerated by the international community; that they are responded to, they bring about consequences.  And the leaders of Russia will have to make their own calculations about the costs that they are incurring for their country and for Russia’s future and Russia’s standing in the world. 

In the meantime, the President is focused on working to build and sustain the consensus that exists in opposition to these actions, and to ensure that we collectively, both here in the United States and in Europe and Asia, are working to support Ukraine and to make it clear that these kinds of actions will not be accepted by the international community.

Q    So the goal of the policy is for the Russians to disavow any steps that they have taken for the Crimean Peninsula to become -- to be part of Ukraine?  Or is it more to just get the Russians to stop threatening the Eastern Ukrainian region?

MR. CARNEY:  The answer is both, in the sense that what Russia has done -- the referendum held under circumstances that are unacceptable under international law and in violation of Ukraine’s constitution, the military actions taken by Russia, the actions taken by the Crimean parliament and the Russian Duma are not and will not be recognized by the international community.  Further provocations will result in increased costs to Russia and others who engage in activities that violate a sovereign state’s territorial integrity.

Q    So you’ve gone after visas, asset forfeitures.  None of that has changed Putin’s mind.  Why not deploy the full arsenal of your economic power against them initially, instead of doing it piecemeal, which doesn’t seem to be doing anything with the Russians?

MR. CARNEY:  Jim, what I would say is that the motivations and the calculations of the leaders in Russia are for them to describe.  What we have done is made clear that these actions will never be recognized by the international community.  They’re illegal, and they violate a sovereign state’s territorial integrity. 

We will make clear that we support the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people.  And we will make sure that there are costs to Russia for the actions that Russia has taken.  And the assessments as to what costs Russia’s leaders are willing to pay on behalf of their nation and at the expense of the Russian people are ones that they will have to make.  But they are real.

And Russia is taking action that reverses some of the work that that nation had done to establish itself as a responsible leader on the international stage.  It isolates Russia.  It undermines faith in Russia’s commitment to rule of law, and therefore undermines the incentive that global investors might have in investing in Russia.  That effect has a negative impact on Russia’s economy and on the Russian people.  And those costs are real.

What we can do is make sure that the costs are imposed, that the international community speaks with one voice in opposition to these steps, and that we together take action to ensure that the costs are imposed as we take action to ensure that Ukraine is supported with assistance by the United States and our allies and partners and the IMF, and as we take steps to make it clear, as Vice President Biden has done in Poland and will do in Lithuania, that we consider our commitment to our NATO allies a solemn commitment that, of course, will be upheld. 

Q    And on another subject -- The Washington Post is now reporting that the NSA has the ability to not only collect metadata about phone calls made and numbers, but that the calls themselves are recorded and can be played back.  These are calls from foreign countries.  Can you comment on that?

MR. CARNEY:  I can’t.  I haven’t seen the report, and I don’t have a response to it except to say that we don’t, as a general rule, comment on every specific allegation or report.  We made clear what activity the NSA and our intelligence community engages in, and the fact that they are bound by our laws and the oversight of three branches of government.  We also note, as I did the other day, the steps that the President announced in January to significantly reform our activity in order to provide the American people even greater assurance about these programs. But I don’t have anything specific on that report.

Q    Jay, would the U.S. back the expulsion of Russia from the G8?  Do you expect this to come up at the meeting next week? 

MR. CARNEY:  We and the other G7 nations have already now announced that preparations for the planned G8 Summit in Sochi have been halted.  I don’t have a preview of all the topics that will be discussed in the G7 meeting in The Hague, on the fringes of the National Security Summit -- sorry, the Nuclear Security Summit.  But certainly Ukraine and Russia’s behavior will be the number-one focus of that conversation. 

It is hard to imagine a meeting of this group taking place in Russia under the current circumstances.

Q    And Vladimir Putin said today that he’s not interested in Ukraine beyond Crimea.  Has he given the President such assurances, and do you believe him?

MR. CARNEY:  The President, as you know, spoke with President Putin the other day, one of several conversations, lengthy conversations the two leaders have had.  We provided a readout; I don’t have any more specificity on that conversation.

What we are monitoring is activity, of course, in Eastern Ukraine and near Eastern Ukraine, and we are making clear that further provocations will be met with further costs to Russia.  We are making clear our support for the Ukrainian government.  We are working with Congress to ensure that bilateral assistance is provided and that the IMF has all the tools it needs to provide even greater assistance to Ukraine.  And we’re in conversations with the Ukrainian government and others about other modes of assistance that we can provide. 

I’m not going to judge the truthfulness of the statements.  We’re going to look and see and evaluate the actions that are taken.

Let me go up and back.  Steve.

Q    The Russian stock market is soaring the last couple days.  Is this a sign that the sanctions that we’ve taken are ineffective if they’re not really paying a cost?  In reality, it’s up about 8, 9 percent in the last couple days, their main stock exchange.

MR. CARNEY:  I think it’s down for the year and I think the ruble has lost value.  And I think that the long-term effect of actions taken by the Russian government, in clear violation of the United Nations charter, in clear violation of its treaty commitments that are destabilizing and illegal, will have an impact on their economy all by themselves.  They will also incur costs because of the sanctions that we and the EU have imposed, and there will be more actions taken under the authorities that exist with the two executive orders that the President has signed.  So I wouldn’t, if I were you, invest in Russian equities right now -- unless you’re going short.

Q    How important is it for Congress to act, given this last few days?  And is the administration considering additional steps that you would like to see Congress take when they return in the light of the fact that the annexation is now going forward?

MR. CARNEY:  Additional steps that Congress can take or should take?  What Congress needs to do, as soon as it is able, is pass the assistance package that has been moving through the Senate.  And we strongly encourage both houses to pass legislation that not only provides the bilateral assistance but ensures that the IMF has all the tools necessary to provide the maximum amount of assistance to Ukraine -- because our bilateral assistance, everyone agrees, is meant to complement, not replace, the IMF’s assistance.  And if we all care, as we say we do, about making sure that the Ukrainian government in this difficult moment has all the assistance it needs to stabilize its economy, Congress needs to make sure that those IMF quota reforms are passed, as well as the bilateral assistance.

What other steps Congress can take, I’m sure we will be in discussion with congressional leaders about that matter.  We are in regular consultation with the Ukrainian government, with our allies in Europe and others about what the Ukrainian government’s needs are and how we can assist them.  Right now, our focus is and continues to be on de-escalation and on doing what we can to help Ukraine stabilize their economy in this difficult moment.

Jim.

Q    After that performance in Moscow today, does the President believe that Putin would actually give Crimea back?

MR. CARNEY:  We’re not judging motives or intentions or predicting future actions, Jim.  I think President Putin spoke for himself today, and everyone can evaluate what he said. 

What is unquestionably true is that the actions that have occurred in Crimea, the decisions made by the Russian government are all in violation of international law and the Ukrainian constitution. 

We have said all along, and so has the Ukrainian government, that there are legal means by which the residents of Crimea could take steps to change their status within Ukraine or change their relationship with Ukraine or Russia, for that matter.  But there’s a legal code in place and a constitution in place for those kinds of discussions to take place and decisions to be made.

Q    But it appears that Putin is not adhering to that legal code.

MR. CARNEY:  No question.

Q    So how do you deal with a person like that?  How do you deal with the Russians if they’re not abiding by the same legal code?

MR. CARNEY:  We are imposing costs to Russia through sanctions and other measures.  The international community is doing the same, and there are other costs incurred by Russia because of these actions that have an effect on Russia’s ability to grow and prosper in the future.  So what the motives of the Russian leadership are, I have to point you to statements by Russian leaders.

Q    And is there a sense of urgency that the West needs to step it up quickly in order to have Putin and Russia reverse course?  Is there a sense of urgency?

MR. CARNEY:  This is certainly a serious situation and we have taken steps accordingly, and we will continue to do so as I indicated earlier.  There are more designations to come when it comes to specific sanctions under the authorities created by the executive orders.  And I noted that the executive order the President signed yesterday is an expansive tool that allows for sanctions to be imposed on Russian government officials -- that has happened -- but also on entities operating in the arms sector in Russia and on individuals who act on behalf of or provide material support to Russian government officials even though they themselves do not hold office in the government. 

And I think that we discussed that yesterday -- there are individuals who fall into that category who have both a great deal of influence in Russia and on the Russian government and who also have substantial assets that can and would be affected by these kinds of sanctions.

Q    And you’ve heard the critics in the last couple of days say that because the President showed weakness to Russia, that that invited this move from Putin to take Crimea.  What is your best argument that that is not the case?

MR. CARNEY:  Here’s what I would say in response to those criticisms, which always lack an alternative approach or proposal.  The idea that bombing another country -- in this case, Syria -- would have somehow been the right policy in order to send a message to the leader of Russia so that he didn’t take action against Ukraine is preposterous in many ways.  It is also provably wrong, as others have said. The fact that President George W. Bush invaded Iraq and had two ongoing wars in the Middle East didn’t seem to affect Russia’s calculations when it came to its actions in Georgia.  So there’s a problem with the logic. 

I would generally say that when assessments are made and judgments made about the course of action the United States is taking with regard to Ukraine, most of what we here called for, we are doing and we will continue to do, including stepping up our assistance to Ukraine, including ratcheting up the costs to Russia for their actions.  If there are other concrete ideas that lawmakers or others have, they ought to express them; and certainly if they’re good ideas, we may take them up.

Chuck.  I never get to my right here.

Q    What made today so special about suspending diplomatic relations with Syria?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not sure it’s about -- what’s special about today --

Q    I guess, why didn’t it happen sooner?

MR. CARNEY:  Following the announcement that the Syrian embassy suspended its provision of consular services, and in consideration of the atrocities the Assad regime has committed against the Syrian people, we have determined it is unacceptable for individuals appointed by that regime to conduct diplomatic or consular operations here in the United States.  Consequently, the United States notified the Syrian government today that it must immediately suspend operations of its embassy in Washington, D.C. and its honorary consulates in Troy, Michigan and Houston, Texas. Syrian diplomats at the embassy and Syrian honorary consulates are no longer permitted to perform diplomatic or consular functions, and those who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents must depart the United States.

Q    I guess what I’m trying to figure out is why didn’t this happen nine months ago when I think the Assad regime --

MR. CARNEY:  As I said, following the announcement that the Syrian embassy suspended its provision of consular services and in consideration of the atrocities perpetrated by the Assad regime, this step was taken.  I think the suspension of consular services was the nearer-term precipitating event.

Q    That’s more of the tipping point.  Ambassador McFaul said today -- said this morning in response to Putin’s speech that there should be more -- that the President should be enacting more sanctions today, that our new response should take place today.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think I said that --

Q    And Vice President Biden seemed to hint that more is coming.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, more is coming.

Q    When?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have timing for you.  But work is being done to make further designations.  And obviously when --

Q    It will continue to be on the individual?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to itemize what’s under consideration or what the decisions will be.  The authorities under the two executive orders are broad and give us the tools we need to take appropriate action as we see fit, given the decisions by the Russian government.

Q    And can you give us more on the Merkel phone call?

MR. CARNEY:  The President spoke with Chancellor Merkel not that along ago, today, about Ukraine, about the collaboration that the two leaders have engaged in with our shared allies and others to ensure that the actions in Ukraine, in Crimea, the transgressions by the Russian government are not viewed as legitimate by the international community.  And that effort is clear to see, and it was evidenced by the 13 to 1 vote --

Q    She agreed with that?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to speak for Chancellor Merkel, but I would point you to her public statements, which have been quite clear and strong on this matter, and on the need for further steps to be taken in response to Russia’s actions.

Q    And I want to get a response to Mitt Romney’s op-ed today that seemed to suggest that the President takes too -- that he’s left with bad options because he takes too long to make decisions in certain situations, whether it’s Syria or Russia, on foreign policy.  I just didn’t know if you had a response to --

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have a response.

Q    There’s nothing you want -- anything to say in response to his --

MR. CARNEY:  I’ll resist. 

All the way in the back.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  Two questions on the missing flight.  First, Malaysia is criticized of lacking cooperation with the FBI.  Is the White House frustrated with that?

MR. CARNEY:  You’ll have to repeat.  You said, Malaysia is criticizing?

Q    Of lacking cooperation with the FBI.

Q    Criticized for.

Q    For -- yes.

MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you is that the Malaysian government has the lead in this investigation.  U.S. officials are in Kuala Lumpur, as you know, working closely with the Malaysian government on the investigation. 

This is a difficult and unusual situation, and we are working hard, in close collaboration with the Malaysian government and other partners, to investigate a number of possible scenarios for what happened to the flight.  Our hearts of course go out to the families of the passengers.  They are in a truly agonizing situation.

We remain fully committed to assisting the Malaysians and working with our other international partners on this investigation, on this effort.  And we are providing assistance through the NTSB, through the FAA and through the FBI.  So I haven’t seen the report that you’re mentioning.  I can assure you that we are in a close, collaborative relationship as regards this investigation.

Q    And also, there are some new reports saying that the missing flight could have landed in the U.S. military base, Diego Garcia, in the central of Indian Ocean.  Do you rule in that or rule out that?

MR. CARNEY:  I’ll rule that one out.  

Bill.

Q    You mentioned earlier that there will be costs.  Again, you said that yesterday, you said it today.  But a lot of people who have looked at the sanctions that were imposed yesterday have found them to be minimal, and in some cases risible.  Mr. Rogozin said that they were written by a prankster.  And, in fact, a lot of the people who were sanctioned don’t have any assets in the U.S.  So --

MR. CARNEY:  Or say they don’t.

Q    Or say they don’t.  So how do these bite?  I mean, what --

MR. CARNEY:  Bill, what I can tell you is that the actions taken against 11 individuals were part of a process that will continue because of continued unwillingness by Russia to resolve this in a way that’s consistent with international law.  And the costs have been real and they will increase.  I’m not going to get into a guessing game about what the decision-making process is among President Putin and his advisors about steps moving forward or the acceptability of the rising costs that are being imposed on Russia for Russia’s actions.

What I can tell you is those costs are real and they will increase.

Q    What are those costs?  I mean, we don’t have any indication from you what you think the costs are.

MR. CARNEY:  No, that’s -- because somebody pops off for a television camera doesn’t mean that the costs aren’t real; that blocking of assets -- access to assets, blocking of an individual’s ability to travel are not real consequences.  And as outlined in the two executive orders that the President signed, there are authorities in those orders to expand considerably the sanctions imposed in response to Russia’s refusal to reverse course in this matter.  And so the costs will increase. 

And as we just discussed with regard to one of the provisions, one of the descriptions of those who could be sanctioned under yesterday’s executive order, they include individuals who are influential with, close to, and provide material support to leading government officials but are not members of the government.  I think anyone who understands how the Russian system of governance works and who has influence in that system understands the kind of person that we’re talking about here, and the fact that they have substantial assets not just in Russia but abroad.

Q    Exactly to that point:  People have pointed out that the people who were sanctioned yesterday are not the top-level oligarchs of Russia.  They are people who have some influence --

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure what your point is.  We took steps yesterday identifying 11 people.  Further steps will be taken, as I’ve made clear today, in response to Russia’s continued refusal to avail itself of the means to resolve this diplomatically in a dialogue with the Ukrainian government, with the participation of international interlocutors, through the presence of U.N. and OSCE monitors in Ukraine; through a process that is established under Ukrainian law and the constitution that would allow for the legal discussion of decisions, like changing the status of a region within the sovereign state of Ukraine.  These are all options available to Russia, available to those in Crimea who have taken this step.  Russia has not availed itself of those options, thus there will be further costs imposed not just by the United States but by others.

Q    You don’t really expect the Russians to walk back what they did this morning, do you?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to psychoanalyze motivations or behavior, and I’m not going to predict actions.  What I can say is that we have been very clear that there are costs to this behavior; those costs have been imposed and are increasing as the behavior continues.

Q    But they just don’t look very severe.

MR. CARNEY:  Bill, I get your point.  It’s yours to have.  I can tell you what we’re doing and what our policy is.

Ed.

Q    Jay, can I ask you about health care?  You started out by saying 5 million people have enrolled.  Is that the correct word, “enrolled,” since we still don’t know how many people have actually paid their premiums?  Is it 5 million signed up?  Will we get the information on who has actually enrolled and paid their premiums?

MR. CARNEY:  CMS is working to provide more detailed data on who has already paid their premiums, what percentage of the population of enrollees that includes.  We can point you to major insurers who have placed that figure at 80 percent, give or take, depending on the insurer.  But we don’t have specific data that is in a reliable enough form to provide.  I think it’s consistent with how these things tend to work. 

And what is ironic to me, I think it was -- in some ways it seems like yesterday and in some ways it seems like five years ago instead of five months ago -- but I doubt, based on the questions I got in the room at the time, that anybody would have done anything but laugh if I had said there would be 5 million enrollees by March 18th.

Q    The last time Secretary Sebelius did a call with CMS officials a couple weeks ago with enrollment figures, they did say -- as you say -- they’re working on the data; they hope to have that data soon about who’s paid.  Do you anticipate it would be by the end of March?

MR. CARNEY:   I would refer you to CMS.  I understand what’s happening here, which is the battle to discredit the process has been lost on the grounds of -- in the arena of nobody is going to enroll, healthcare.gov is a disaster, the whole thing is going to collapse of its own weight.  Well, that didn’t happen, and I apologize to those who were hoping it would.  

But, you know, what we are doing is systematically implementing a law that provides enormous benefits to millions of Americans who are making clear that they want us to do that by the demand they’re showing.  Every time there’s an issue that needs to be resolved, we are going about the business of resolving it.  Every time there’s data that we are able to provide in a responsible way, we provide it.  And that’s going to be the case here.

What I can tell you is a lot of people have signed up; a lot more will sign up.  They’re signing up because they want the benefits provided by the options available to them, and I am confident that no matter what the number is on April 1st, there will be those who find it insufficient.

Q    Last one.  One reason people have to go to the exchanges to get covered is if they’re looking for a new job.  And so I wonder if you think you’re going to be looking for health care and going to the exchanges any time soon.  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  I would say a couple of things about reports on personnel moves at the White House, which is the level of accuracy is inversely proportional to the quality of the sources.

Q    So can we get your take on it then?  So we can get the most accurate version, let’s get it from you.

MR. CARNEY:  I have a great job that I love.

Yes, sir.

Q    Thank you, Jay.  Vice President Biden with Polish President Komorowski this morning.  President Komorowski said he was not surprised of Russia’s move in Ukraine because the Russian budget defense had grown 400 percent in the last eight years, and he criticized NATO members who have scaled back their defense spending.  Does the White House agree or believe that NATO members, considering the Ukrainian crisis, should reconsider their military spending?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I didn’t see those particular comments, but I can certainly understand the concern and suspicion on behalf of Polish officials with regards to what Russia has been doing in Ukraine.  I think that if you look at overall military spending by this country, say, from 10 years ago, you’d see dramatic increases, even as we now rationalize our military spending after having ended one war and being in the process of ending another.

What I would also say is that if you look at the President’s submitted budget, it contains within it both a topline for defense spending and an additional $25 billion through the security and investment fund that we certainly hope Congress will support, because we believe that is an appropriate additional amount of spending that we should see in our defense budget.

Q    And how about the NATO members?

MR. CARNEY:  I’ll wait until we talk to NATO, or hear what the institution itself has to say.  I don’t have at my fingertips figures on defense spending by NATO members.

April.

Q    Jay, on two subjects; one on health care.  You’re over 5 million enrolled.  What is the anticipation of this White House for March 31st?  What are your numbers for March 31st?  What are you expecting?

MR. CARNEY:  Now, you know I’m not going to do that, April.

Q    No, I don’t know.

MR. CARNEY:  All I can tell you is that we have a lot of people who have signed up and there are going to be more.  Our goal has always been to get a substantial number and for it to be demographically and geographically allocated in a way that allows the marketplaces to function effectively.  We believe very strongly that we’ll achieve those goals.

There’s been some talk over the months about what target figures there are, and CBO has made estimates and revised estimates, and I can point you to the CBO for the CBO’s figures. What I can tell you is, since the very, very rocky start that this enrollment period endured, we have seen substantial interest rewarded with an ability consummated to enroll in insurance coverage through the marketplaces.  That’s a good thing. 

The purpose of the law was to make sure that Americans across the country had options available to them for quality, affordable health insurance.  And that is being realized.  We have a lot of work to do.  We’re 13 days out.  A lot of people can and will still enroll, and we are doing a multifaceted campaign to reach as many people as we can so that they know what their options are and they know that March 31st is the deadline and they need to enroll by then or they won’t be able to until next year.

Q    So was it out of the realm of possibility that 7 million could be met?  Especially as this weekend the President told those workers at QSSI that he’s anticipating large numbers to come in on the site and through the other sites that are linked to the federal government to register. 

MR. CARNEY:  I think we’ve all learned through hard experience not to predict success but to do the hard work necessary to create success when it comes to this effort.  And there are a lot of people working extremely hard to ensure that the website is functioning, that all the various issues that need to be resolved as we smooth out the transition here are being resolved effectively for the American people.  And that work is going to continue right up until the deadline, and it will continue beyond that in the various efforts that need to continue to work.

So what we feel positive about is that since the wretched start to healthcare.gov, we have seen a system that has functioned effectively for the millions of Americans who want it to work for them.  And it was on us to fix the problems, and some very talented people worked hard to make that happen. 

We’ve got 13 days left, and I want everybody -- and I know the audience isn’t huge -- but anybody who is out there watching should be aware that March 31st is the deadline and they need to make sure they have the information they want and need so that they can enroll by March 31st.

Q    And last topic.  What would it take to see a G8 again versus a G7?  I mean, what would it take for Russia to come back into the fold?

MR. CARNEY:  I wouldn’t put it in terms of that institution and the meetings and the summits it holds.  I would simply say that the suspension of preparations for that G8 Summit are the result -- that that suspension is the result of the actions that Russia has taken.  So the positive that would come out of Russia reversing course might include restoring preparations for the G8 in general, but I think the positives are far greater than that as a general matter.

Jared.  Go ahead, Jared, and then Jon.

Q    You described the costs to Russia as real and significant, and they’ve been effective.  Can you at this point point to any hesitation or any reversal of course that Russia has made due to the sanctions and the other costs that the United States has put into place?

MR. CARNEY:  Jared, I want to congratulate you on the penetrating question.  I think it’s very clear that Russia continues to pursue a course that is in direct violation of international law, that directly contradicts its obligations under international treaties and understandings and memoranda that it has with Ukraine and other nations.  And that’s why we’re taking the actions we’re taking, and that’s why the costs will increase until Russia changes course.

Q    But at this point you can count no successes?

MR. CARNEY:  You’ve seen what’s happened today.  I’m not sure your point, except that as long as Russia -- I mean, you’re reinforcing the point.  Yes, if Russia refuses to change course, it will incur more costs imposed by us, imposed by our friends and allies around the world, and imposed in general by the global economy.

Jon.

Q    I just want a couple clarifications.  You said the United States will never recognize this annexation that Russia has done today.  Does that mean that the sanctions that have been put in place are going to remain in place until Russia reverses what it has done?

MR. CARNEY:  Sanctions will increase.  Designations will be forthcoming.  So it’s hard for me to put a pin on what the ongoing consequences of that kind of action would be.  What I can say without question is that this action, the results of the referendum, and the attempt to annex a region of Ukraine illegally will never be recognized by the United States or the international community.

Q    And should we then assume -- and I think you strongly implied it, so I’ll just ask directly -- the G8 Summit in Sochi will not happen unless Russia reverses course?

MR. CARNEY:  All I can say right now, Jon, is that preparations for that summit have been suspended.  Summits don’t occur without preparations; those preparations don’t look likely to be resumed any time soon.  But I don’t have an announcement to make about that at this time. 

We are focused on, as we have been throughout this situation, providing support to Ukraine, rallying the international community in opposition to these actions, and conveying very clearly to the Russians what we believe are very sensible options for them to take when it comes to ensuring that their interests in Ukraine are protected and recognized. 

Q    On the seven Russians that were sanctioned, assets freezed -- can you tell us, do any of them have assets in the United States? 

MR. CARNEY:  That’s not information I have.  I would refer you to the Department of Treasury for those kinds of questions.  What I can tell you is those named in the seven -- there were four others under the other designation -- the seven you mention are very well known and prominent members of the Russian government or the Duma, and they fall under the category of Russian government officials that was spelled out in the executive order.  That executive order contains within it expansive authorities for the designation of other individuals and entities.  And what I can tell you is that you should expect further action to be taken as Russia continues down this path.

Q    And just a political question.  Earlier today, the Chairman of the Republican Party predicted a Republican “tsunami” this fall.  I’m just wondering if political forecasters here at the White House see signs of a Republican “tsunami” on the horizon?

MR. CARNEY:  It’s an interesting choice of words.  But I think that the President is focused on and Democrats are focused on a message that supports the policy priorities that we have, which consist of steps we can take to expand opportunity and reward hard work and responsibility in this country.  And that policy approach is supported by a substantial percentage of Americans across the country.  And that’s the way we approach this election cycle, because elections in the end are about who makes the decisions going forward in Congress, in this case when it comes to policy.

And we’re always engaged in a debate about what the proper policies are when it comes to how do we grow our economy, how do we expand opportunity, how do we reward hard work.  What to me doesn’t seem like a particularly substantive argument is that we’re against everything they’re for and we’ll get back to you about what we’re for.  It certainly does leave the opening for those who might make the counter argument that, therefore, the policies that helped precipitate the worst recession since the Great Depression, that’s not a great place to be.

Q    Do you agree with your predecessor, Robert Gibbs, on the likelihood of the Republicans taking over the Senate?  I mean, it’s not -- the Republicans --

MR. CARNEY:  I didn’t see him say that was likely.  I don’t think it’s likely at all.  I think the Senate is going to be retained by Democrats for the reasons I just described. 

Q    Jay, you said of the G7 side meeting next week that they would discuss modes of assistance to Ukraine.  A Senate delegation that went over there late last week or whatever, Senator John McCain at the very least has come back and said that the United States and NATO should consider sending some kind of defensive military hardware -- anti-aircraft, anti-tank hardware, whatever.  Is that one of the modes of assistance that will be considered at that meeting next week?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we have said -- and I’ll repeat -- that we are reviewing requests by the Ukrainian government, and we are -- and we’ll continue to do that.  Our focus, however, remains on supporting economic and diplomatic measures aimed at de-escalating the situation in Ukraine.  But we’re reviewing a variety of requests and running a process that evaluates what forms of assistance we and our partners can provide aimed at a focus that still hopes to see this situation de-escalate rather than escalate. 

Q    Have they requested significant amounts of military?

MR. CARNEY:  I would refer you to the Ukrainian government.

Alexis, then Roger.

Q    Jay, one quick question to follow up.  Because a lot of the relationships, international relationships with Russia are under some scrutiny or reevaluation, do you happen to know whether the World Trade Organization is something that Russia might lose its membership in?  It worked so hard to get into the WTO.  Is that at risk?

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t heard that specific conversation.  I think that, in general, Russia’s credibility and stature internationally is affected by these actions.  The system that is in place through organizations with broad international membership that affect trade and politics, if you will, through the United Nations and other organizations depend on a fealty to the rule of law, a shared commitment to resolve differences through legal means. 

And what we have seen of late by the actions taken by the Russians in Crimea is an undermining of and a violation of those principles that undergird that structure that supports all of these international institutions.  So it certainly affects their standing within the world community.  I don’t know at this point how to answer questions about status or membership within any specific organization. 

Roger, last question. 

Q    Thank you.  The Vice President in Poland this morning talked about diversifying the region’s energy supply.  Can you talk a little bit more about what the Vice President has in mind and what possibly the U.S. role will be?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that there has been a lot of focus, for good reason, on the secure energy needs of Europe in general and which nations depend on which other nations for their energy supplies.  What we have said is that we’re taking immediate steps to assist Ukraine, including in the area of energy security, energy efficiency and energy sector reform.  In addition, we understand that there has been no interruption of oil and natural gas exports from Russia to Ukraine and Europe.  European gas inventories, as I think I pointed out the other day, are well above normal levels at this time due to a milder than usual winter in Europe and could replace a loss of Russian exports for several months if necessary.

It’s also important when you look at the question of energy security and Ukraine, that any disruption to Russia’s energy shipment to Ukraine and Europe is a lose-lose situation for everyone, with Russia being the biggest loser.  They depend heavily on Europe and Ukraine as critical export markets for its natural gas, and they earn something like $50 billion per year from those sales.  You remember that a lot of the supplies to Europe run through Ukraine.  So we’re evaluating steps that Ukraine can take when it comes to energy security to energy efficiency and energy sector reform, and mindful of all the things that I just mentioned.

Q    This would be on the agenda for The Hague next week, you think?

MR. CARNEY:   I don’t want to get more specific than I was earlier.  Ukraine is the subject, will be the principal subject of that conversation.  I obviously leave it up to the leaders to decide the particulars.  Thank you all very much. 

END
1:03 P.M. EDT

Background Press Briefing by a Senior Administration Official on the Vice President's Trip to Poland and Lithuania

Aboard Air Force Two
En Route Warsaw, Poland

11:24 P.M. EST

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is on background as  a senior administration official, and given the late hour, I’m going to beg your forgiveness for keeping it short.

So the Vice President is making stops in Warsaw and Vilnius first and foremost to reassure our allies who are deeply concerned about Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine and what the broader implications of those actions might be.

Connected to that, to reassure our allies and reaffirm our Article 5 commitments, to highlight some of the tangible steps that we’ve taken in recent days to make that commitment even more real, to discuss further steps that we’ll be taking in the days and weeks ahead, and also to talk about how to strengthen the alliance so that NATO emerges from this crisis even stronger than it went into it.

He’ll also look for the opportunity to consult on how to deal with the evolving situation in Ukraine, especially as these leaders head into the EU leaders meeting on Thursday. 

If Russia continues to flout international law, how to continue to impose costs, building on what the EU and the United States did today in terms of sanctions to deepen Russia’s political and economic isolation and sharpen the choice for Russia’s leaders, including Putin; how to support Ukraine and the Ukrainian people as they try to stabilize their economy and move towards elections and choose their own future, including the institutions that they seek to join; and how to pursue diplomacy that could potentially deescalate the situation if Russia were to choose to pull back and take a different course.  So he’ll have the chance to consult with leaders who have deep experience with both Ukraine and Russia and a perspective on both what is happening in Crimea and in Ukraine, and what’s happening Brussels, so that they can compare notes and make sure that we remain as coordinated in the days ahead as we’ve been up until now.

And he’ll also have the opportunity to talk about longer term issues, including energy security in Europe that includes diversification of supply and the creation of conditions where energy can't be a tool or a lever for any kind of political gain or political cost by another country.

Q    (Inaudible) energy sanctions, no?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No.  I was saying that they’ll discuss energy security and included in that over the medium and long term, diversification in energy supply so that energy can't be used as a political tool to impose costs.

Q    Not sanctions?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Not sanctions, no.  No, no, that -- obviously, they’ll discuss the issue of ongoing sanctions, but that's not what I’m referring to with energy diversification. 

And transatlantic trade.  Obviously, we have negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership underway, and they’ll have a chance to compare notes on that.

And then finally, there’s a series of bilateral issues with each of these countries.

Now, I realize that I just walked through all the issues without doing the basic laydown, so returning to that before opening it up for a few questions:  Tomorrow in Warsaw, he’ll meet with Prime Minister Tusk first, and then President Komorowski, and have statements after each of those meetings.

And then he’ll meet with President Ilves of Estonia, who is in Poland on a state visit.  And then the following day, he’ll meet with the Presidents of Lithuania and Latvia in Vilnius and also have the opportunity to confer with them in a trilateral format as well, and then he’ll do a statement with both of those leaders together in Vilnius.

So with that I’m happy to take a few questions.

Q    We’re going to Poland, is there any reconsideration of the U.S. position on missile defense as it pertains to increased antagonism from Russia?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The question is, is there any consideration of a change to U.S. missile defense connected to this crisis I guess would be the synopsis of the question.  And the answer is that we’ve made clear from the beginning that the European-phased, adaptive approach to ballistic missile defense has never been about Russia.  It’s been about emerging ballistic missile threats from elsewhere.  And so the Vice President’s intention tomorrow is to reaffirm that everything about our missile defense plans for Europe remain on track.  That's true for Romania and it’s true for Poland.

And he’ll be able to underscore that it’s on schedule and on track by -- he won’t be discussing changes in the missile defense approach tomorrow.

Q    Are there some additional steps that NATO is looking at taking or that the Vice President will discuss with these countries separate from missile defense that involve movements towards borders, toward Ukraine that address what’s going on?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So I’ll leave it to the Vice President to discuss some of this tomorrow.  He will be talking about further steps that the United States can take and that NATO can take as an alliance to further shore up the security of Poland and the Baltics and other NATO allies, to increase training exercises and other things like that.  But I won’t go into further detail at this point.

I would highlight that one of the things he’ll be able to underscore are steps that we’ve just taken in the past few days including augmenting the Baltic air policing mission by adding additional fighter jets in Estonia, and by augmenting the aviation detachment in Poland by adding a complement of fighters there as well.

Q    A complement of what?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Fighters.

Q    Fighters, thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And he’ll also discuss both of those moves, which have now been completed just in the past few days.

And at the same time that he’s in the region, General Breedlove, in his capacity as EUCOM commander, will be meeting with the chiefs of defense of Central and Eastern Europe in Croatia to discuss a range of security issues.

Q    (Inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I believe it has.

Q    Even as Poland -- even as we’re helping Poland with increased air assets, Tusk has still been very aggressive with his rhetoric in terms of what Poland wants to do unilaterally, so what aspect of this trip will be the Vice President going to talk to Tusk about talking him off the ledge on perhaps some unilateral actions that the Poles or any of the other Baltic nations that he’s speaking with might want to do on their own?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  When you say unilateral actions, what do you mean?

Q    Tusk has been talking about bolstering their own missile defense system within the country of Poland, as well as their own military assets, so in terms of what these individual countries might do by themselves is what I mean.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So I think the Vice President is going to focus on both what the specific U.S. commitments have been and will continue to be to Poland’s defense, but chiefly in the context of NATO as a whole because his view -- and I think it’s shared by the Prime Minister and the President -- is that NATO is at its strongest when all 28 allies are pulling together.  So the Vice President will want to discuss with both the Prime Minister and the President in Poland how we can strengthen the alliance commitments to Poland, not just the United States, but all the other allies, as well, including Western European allies, and how we can look forward to the summit in Wales later this year to think about strengthening Article 5 commitments, as well as the host of other security issues that the NATO alliance faces.

So I think the Vice President is really going to look at this set of security questions very much in an alliance context.

Q    One more thing about natural gas shipments.  That's sort of become a bit of a talking point.  Will the Vice President have a specific message related to U.S. efforts to accelerate the ability for us to engage in LNG trade with Europe?  And how relevant is it to these leaders that we’re going to be meeting?  Would that be something that they would welcome and ask for?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So for tonight’s purposes I would just say that he’ll be talking about the range of issues related to energy diversification, which includes alternative forms of energy -- nuclear, shale, alternative sources of supply.  And as respects the question of what the United States can do, we’re obviously looking at what the United States can do domestically that serves both U.S. interests and European interests.

But in terms of more specifics, we’ll have an opportunity to talk further in the next couple days.

Q    Can you talk a little bit, what will be their assessment of the threat these countries are under for retaliation for sanctions that have already been applied?  Like we keep reading that they're nervous -- what’s your assessment of how much risk they face?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think it will be interesting to hear from them how they assess the issue of sanctions.  Each of these leaders in the Baltics and in Poland have been strong supporters of ensuring that there are costs for flagrant violations of international law, and they’ll be continued advocates for that we expect at the Europe leaders meeting on Thursday.

But of course, they're close neighbors with Russia, and they have economic relationships with them, so that will obviously be part of the discussion.  But we can also talk more about that after we’ve had the chance to consult with them tomorrow.

END
11:36 P.M. EST

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 3/17/14

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:22 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have any announcements to make.  Obviously, you heard the President earlier today speak about the sanctions that we announced this morning against individuals over the situation in Ukraine and Crimea.  So beyond that, I’ll just take your questions.

Q    I’d like to ask, on the sanctions, how President Putin might feel the impact of this.  On the call with the senior administration officials today, they said that they don’t begin sanctions -- the United States doesn’t typically begin them with a head of state.  But are they under consideration for a possibility in the future, or is that off the table under U.S. policy?  And might we see more of Putin’s inner circle affected by these?

MR. CARNEY:  I’d say a couple of things, Nedra -- and those are all good questions.  The additional executive order that the President has signed allows for a more expansive series of categories that sanctions can then be applied against -- which is not a great sentence.  But, in other words, the individuals announced today have specific positions within the Russian government, or the State Duma.  The executive order that was announced today, while only one item on that list of -- one category was filled with individuals, there are other opportunities within that executive order to levy sanctions against other individuals who might have influence with Russian governmental officials and Russian policy.  So that’s one.

Two, as the President signaled today, we have the capacity and the authority to calibrate our response -- in other words, initiate further sanctions depending on what happens in the coming days and weeks with regards to Ukraine and the actions that Russia decides to take.

As the President made clear, we are still pressing Russia to pursue a diplomatic resolution to this situation in Ukraine, and that opportunity exists.  But should it fail to do that, should it take steps that further violate Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, we have the authority to impose further sanctions and to do so more broadly.

Q    And could that include President Putin under U.S. policy?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, what can I tell you is that the authority exists to apply sanctions to a variety of individuals and entities.  We’re going to evaluate what the right step is as this situation evolves.  We’re not going to rule out individuals or rule out actions, except to say that there will be costs imposed on Russia -- additional costs imposed on Russia if Russia does not change direction here when it comes to how it’s handling the situation in Ukraine.

Q    Another follow-up from that call with the senior administration officials.  They said there was concrete evidence that some ballots arrived pre-marked in Crimea, but they didn’t get into specifics.  Can you talk more about what that evidence is?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have specifics on that evidence.  I don’t have specifics on the referendum itself.  As a matter of policy, in our view, it’s irrelevant because the referendum is not valid under the Ukrainian constitution.  And the actions that Russia took -- sending military forces into Crimea, basically seizing the peninsula and initiating a referendum that was conducted in the presence of armed Russian military forces  -- all render that whole process suspect and illegitimate.  So I don’t have specifics on that.

I think that the way that referendum happened, the fact that it was called days after Russian military forces -- basically a foreign power’s military forces seized the peninsula, says all you need to know about the illegitimacy of the process.  There is a way in Ukraine, under its laws and constitution, to decide matters of a regent status within Ukraine, or to change in any way Ukraine’s territorial boundaries.  The way that Russia has pursued is obviously not legal under the constitution and not valid.

Q    Just finally, can you give us more of a readout of the meeting with Abbas?  Was there any chance the deadline that’s coming up for the framework could be extended?  Or any indication that Abbas would recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

MR. CARNEY:  We may have further information about the meetings today.  Obviously, the President spoke at the top of the bilateral meeting about the discussion he looked forward to having, because this is such a pivotal time in this process, in the negotiations.  As he did with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama made clear that he appreciates the fact that both leaders have made tough decisions, but also underscored the fact that each leader has additional hard decisions to make in order to move this process forward.

When it comes to the matter of the Israeli state, our view is quite clear that this process can and must end in a result that has a sovereign Palestinian state and a safe, secure, democratic Jewish Israeli state.  But we’re not going to get into the status of negotiations over these difficult issues.  We want each side to press forward so that a framework for negotiations can be agreed to so the process can continue to move forward.  These are tough issues. 

It’s incumbent on both sides to try very hard to put the decades of mistrust if not behind them, then in context as they pursue the interests of their own people, the interests of the Palestinian state that will emerge from a resolution and a secure, democratic Jewish Israeli state that can emerge from a resolution.

As for the Palestinians, they have to recognize that the path to independence, sovereignty and security in their own state can only come through direct negotiations with Israel.  We have the opportunity now to achieve that goal, but only if, as I said, hard choices are made.  And we believe that, as is the case with Prime Minister Netanyahu, so it is with President Abbas:  He is the right leader to make these hard choices and to bring about a peace agreement with Israel.

Q    Jay, just in terms of how you calibrate the sanctions -- say that Russia goes ahead and annexes Crimea, do you then come out with a longer list of names of people to sanction?  And what is more serious -- the annexation or the fact of the military incursion itself?

MR. CARNEY:  They both would be -- in the case of the annexation, and certainly with the military incursion that’s already occurred -- very, very serious and very much in violation of international law and the Ukrainian constitution. 

The answer to your first question is, yes, there is the authority that exists in the two executive orders now signed to name additional individuals.  And work continues on what further steps we, the United States, can take -- working with our European partners -- to raise the cost to Russia, should Russia decide to continue down this path.

Q    And what about military assistance to Ukraine?  Senator McCain keeps talking about that.  Have you completely ruled that out now? 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, no, we haven’t ruled any form of assistance out.  We are focused presently on providing the assistance that Ukraine needs most at this time, which is economic assistance, assistance in stabilizing its economy in this difficult time.  And we are working with Congress to have that occur.  We’re working through the IMF, obviously, because any bilateral assistance would complement the assistance provided by the IMF.  And we are working with our European partners and allies who are also -- and our allies elsewhere in the world who are also mindful of the need to provide assistance to the Ukrainian government at this difficult time. 

But we’re not -- we’re examining all sorts of possibilities when it comes to how we can help Ukraine in this challenging environment.  Right now, we’re focused on raising the costs on Russia for the actions that Russia has taken, making clear that there will be more costs and more isolation to Russia if they do not reverse course, and ensuring that steps are taken so that Ukraine is getting the economic assistance it needs. 

Q    And are you at the point of decoupling the aid package from the IMF reforms that you’ve been assisting?

MR. CARNEY:  We are not, because we believe very strongly that the passage of IMF quota reforms serves the interests of providing additional assistance to Ukraine.  So if that is an urgent priority for members of Congress, as it is for many members of Congress -- it certainly is for the President -- then that package, the bilateral assistance, the loan guarantee program plus the reforms to the IMF should pass together because that will allow for the greatest benefit to Ukraine.  It allows for more flexibility and leverage and greater assistance from the IMF to Ukraine.

Jim.

Q    What happens if Russia goes ahead and makes this decision tomorrow to annex Crimea?  I suppose, what really could the U.S. do at that point?  You could impose further sanctions; you could widen the net of individuals who are caught up in these sanctions.  But have you considered at all that maybe Putin just doesn’t care?

MR. CARNEY:  What we have said, what the President made clear, and what I am reinforcing today is that further provocations, further steps along the path that Russia is currently on will result in further costs to Russia and further isolation for Russia.  Those costs are real and they are direct costs to individuals named in these sanctions announced today, direct costs when it comes to the individuals named by our European allies.

There have been and will continue to be direct and significant costs to the Russian economy because of the actions that Russia has taken.  The Russian stock market has decreased as a result of the actions that have happened.  The ruble has lost value as a result of this.  And international investors who are looking for safe places to put their money are surely reevaluating any consideration they may give to putting their money in Russia and in Russian industries and the Russian economy.  And those effects, those impacts will only compound as time passes and Russia doesn’t reverse course or engages in further provocations.

So the fact is the more Russia does to violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity, to unlawfully seize Ukrainian assets, to ignore Ukraine’s sovereignty, the higher the price will be to Russia and the higher and more intense the isolation that Russia will suffer as a result of it. 

And obviously I'm not going to try to psychoanalyze motivations, but it is a fact that Russia loses stature and influence in the world if it incurs these costs.  And that carries significance for I think the Russian people and for Russian leaders, and all the individuals surrounding the leaders of the Russian government who have great influence even if they don't hold positions in government.  And I would point you to one of the items in the new executive order that identifies as potential targets of sanctions individuals who have great influence on the Russian government and on Russian policymakers but who may not hold themselves government positions.

Q    But it does seem, though, that this is sort of all about Putin.  You can target the people around him, but isn't it really about him?

MR. CARNEY:  The people around him, Jim, have a great deal of influence in Russia and on the actions of the Russian government.  And I don't think anyone who has studied the Russian government and the power structure there would doubt that assessment.  And again, some of the people identified or who are targeted today are advisors to President Putin as well as senior figures in the Russian parliament, the Duma.  So there are costs individually to them, there are costs to the Russian economy.  There are costs to Russia’s eminence on the world stage, if you will, its prestige when it comes to international organizations that make a lot of determinations about a lot of things -- determinations that Russia has earned a right over the years to participate in and to play a role in. 

But I think I would point you to the United Nations Security Council vote over the weekend in which Russia was completely alone on the matter of Ukraine.  Thirteen nations voted against Russia.  China abstained, notably, and Russia alone cast a single ballot against.  So that should tell you something about the costs that these actions have already incurred to Russia.

Q    And on the Malaysian plane, over the weekend the Prime Minister of Malaysia said that evidence existed that would suggest that the plane was deliberately steered off course.  Does the U.S. government know enough whether or not to agree or disagree with that assessment?

MR. CARNEY:  We are working closely with Malaysian authorities who have the lead in this investigation, and that includes the NTSB, that includes the FAA, and it includes the FBI lending its assistance to the investigation.  But we have not seen enough evidence to support any scenario to allow us to draw a conclusion about what happened.  And we continue to work very closely with a host of international partners, led by the Malaysian government, in the effort to find out what happened to the plane, locate the plane, and find out the cause of its disappearance. 

So we're not prepared to make any assessments about which scenario is most likely until we have more information and more conclusive information.

I’ll move around.  Bill.

Q    Jay, as has been reported, has the White House abandoned your nominee for surgeon general for the United States?

MR. CARNEY:  No.  Dr. Murthy is a dynamic, entrepreneurial practitioner who had dedicated a lot of time, energy and passion to health and wellness.  As surgeon general, he will be a powerful messenger on these issues in each of the tenets of health:  nutrition, activity and resilience.  Dr. Murthy, as you know, was approved out of committee with bipartisan support.  But after the confirmation vote of Debo Adegbile, we are recalibrating the strategy around Dr. Murthy’s floor vote.  We expect him to get confirmed ultimately and be one of the country’s most powerful messengers on health and wellness.

So we're recalibrating our approach, but in answer to your question, no.

Q    At the time, there are reported 10 Senate Democrats who said they will not vote for him because of his opposition of the NRA.  Is the President talking to these Democrats?

MR. CARNEY:  We are recalibrating and assessing our strategy moving forward with the nomination in light of the vote that I just mentioned.  Dr. Murthy emerged out of committee with a bipartisan vote of support and we will make assessments about how and when to move forward accordingly.

Q    “Recalibrate” does not mean different nominee.

MR. CARNEY:  Correct.  Yes, Jon.

Q    I just want to clarify -- you said to Nedra that you're not going to rule out any individual’s sanctions going forward.  Are sanctions on Vladimir Putin -- freezing Vladimir Putin’s assets -- is that something that is on the table, is actively under consideration if Russia goes further?

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not going to specify where possibilities lie right now except to say that we have an active effort underway to assess what further steps and what further sanctions we can and could impose should the events dictate the need to do that.

You’ve seen today the actions that we've taken, the individuals that we've identified.  You’ve seen the executive order that widens the net, if you will, and allows for sanctions to be imposed to a broader array -- against a broader array of individuals.  We'll make assessments accordingly.  But I'm not going to get into a game of hinting or indicating who might be next or the steps we might take next except to make clear that should Russia engage in further provocation, should it not avail itself of the opportunity to resolve the situation in Crimea and, more broadly, with Ukraine in a diplomatic and legal way, that there will be more costs and there will be more sanctions.

Q    So you're not taking sanctions against Putin off the table?

MR. CARNEY:  I think I've said that already.  I'm not putting on or off any individual.  You can see the scope provided by the executive orders that have been signed and how individuals can fall into the categories outlined in those executive orders. But beyond saying that we are assessing regularly additional steps we could take and sanctions we could impose, I'm not going to label individuals or predict who might be next, if anyone is.

Q    And by taking these actions and saying that they are targeted, those responsible for Russia’s activity in Crimea, the White House is not suggesting that Vladimir Putin is not responsible for what Russia has done there?

MR. CARNEY:  Certainly we're not.  The authorities are --

Q    So why not sanction him?  I'm just --

MR. CARNEY:  Jon, I feel like this is Groundhog Day from a briefing I had last week. 

Q    Well, now you’ve done this today, and Putin is not on the list, so I’m asking why.

MR. CARNEY:  I would suggest that we have identified individuals today.  We have the authorities to more broadly identify individuals and entities in the future, and we will do that as necessary if the costs to Russia need to be increased because of Russian actions.

What I won't do is speculate about who might be on a list of individuals who are sanctioned in the future.  I can point you to the list of individuals who have been identified today, and they include obviously advisors to President Putin, as well as senior figures in the Duma.

Q    And let me ask you just something on -- it was on Russian television, state-controlled television, the main state-controlled channel.  Dmitry Kiselyov, a prominent Russian television anchor, posed in front of a mushroom cloud and warned that Russia is the only country in the world capable of turning the U.S. into “radioactive dust.”  I mention this because this is state-controlled Russian television, which, as we know, doesn’t generally broadcast stuff that is not signed off by the government of Russia.  What is your sense when you hear something like that?

MR. CARNEY:  I mean, that people say crazy things on TV all the time.

Q    Yes, but this is Russian state-controlled TV.  I take your point entirely, but -- (laughter) -- but this is –

MR. CARNEY:  We’re focused on the actions of the Russian government.  We’re focused on the support we’re providing to the Ukrainian government.  We’re focused on marshalling a strategy with our partners around the world, especially in Europe, for how to deal with this challenge posed by Russia.  And we are making sure that Russia is incurring costs for the provocations it has engaged in and the actions that it’s taken.  That’s what we’re focused on right now, and those costs are real and they will increase if Russia continues down this path.

Q    Variations on the theme.  Is it possible that the United States would sanction the head of state of another nation with which it has normal relations under any circumstances?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to speculate about that, Bill.  I will simply say that I haven’t ruled out any individual who might be covered under the categories that are provided in the executive orders.  We have identified individuals today; we’ve made clear that other individuals can and will be named if Russia continues down the path it’s on.

Q    And President Putin is reputed to have amassed sizeable wealth.  Is any of it in the United States?  Is the U.S. aware that there are assets here which could be targeted?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have any information of that nature to provide, Bill.  I think that we are focused, again, on the sanctions we’ve taken today; on the support we’re providing to the Ukrainian government; on the consensus that the United States and our partners have built around the idea that Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty must be respected.  And we’re going to continue to work to persuade Russia to pursue a different course here, which is to address its concerns when it comes to ethnic Russians in Ukraine, when it comes to its interests specifically in Crimea, through internationally lawful means that will allow it to ensure that those interests are protected and observed.

We have offered, and our European allies have offered, a way out of this for Russia, an off-ramp, that makes clear that there’s an opportunity for Russia to take steps that do not require it to violate a sovereign nation’s territorial integrity and will allow it to reduce the cost of this action on Russia.  So we hope that, and will work with our partners in trying to bring about Russia availing itself of that option.

Q    Yeah, but Russia clearly doesn’t believe that it has violated a sovereign nation’s territorial integrity. 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, together with North Korea and I think Syria, the Syrian regime, they are alone in that belief.

Yes.  Kristen, sorry.

Q    Thank you.  I want to go back to the issue of military assistance; you’ve said that it’s something that’s under consideration.  Is it something that could happen in the next few days, or is it something that’s dependent on further provocations by Putin?

MR. CARNEY:  I can say that we’re reviewing requests by the Ukrainian government and military, but our focus continues to be on supporting economic and diplomatic measures to deescalate the situation, not escalate it.  In terms of specific requests, I’d refer you to the Department of Defense.

But again, our focus is on steps that Russia can take to deescalate, and that includes returning Russian military troops to their bases and restoring the levels of the Russian military presence in Crimea to those agreed to with the Ukrainian government.  Principally, it means –

Q    So it sounds like you’re not going to make a decision about this –

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to speculate about what further assistance we might provide or actions we might take should Russia continue down its current path.  Instead, we’re going to make sure that we, in concert with our allies, are providing economic assistance to Ukraine, which is what Ukraine most needs right now, and that we are taking steps to make sure that Russia is paying a price for the action that it’s taken and that Russia understands clearly that that price will rise if they continue down this path.

Q    Senator John McCain says that sanctioning seven people is a timid response.  He said earlier today, “Vladimir Putin must be encouraged by the [absolute] timidity.”  Can you react to that?  And do you think that these sanctions are going to cause Putin to reverse course and not annex Crimea, which is the goal ultimately at this point?

MR. CARNEY:  What we have done is named individuals who will be sanctioned because of their actions in support of an effort that defies international law and violates Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.  We have -- the President has, by signing an additional executive order, created more authorities for more sanctions that can be more broadly applied against individuals, for example, who have very significant influence in Moscow and over the Russian government and Russian leaders, but who themselves do not hold governmental positions.

We believe strongly that those costs are real and that they will grow if Russia does not change course.  So that’s the path we’re taking.  And we think that part of the effort should include action by the Congress to ensure that the United States is providing loan guarantees in the form of bilateral assistance and passing IMF quota reform so that the International Monetary Fund can provide additional assistance to Ukraine.  That’s, in our view, the right course at this time.

Q    But, I guess, based on all of the reporting that I’ve seen out of Crimea, it seems like a foregone conclusion that Russia is going to annex Crimea.  Is that the President’s understanding?  Does he think that Crimea is now Russia’s?

MR. CARNEY:  No, we do not at all acknowledge or recognize the referendum, and would not under any circumstances.

Q    But does he think anything can be done to prevent Putin and Russia from moving forward?

MR. CARNEY:  Russia will pay a cost if it continues down this path, and the cost will be significant.  It has already incurred costs to its economy and to its currency.  And the United States will not recognize that sort of action by Russia and nor will most nations across the globe.  And that is significant when you consider the role that Russia seeks to play internationally.

Q    I just want to ask you one on Malaysia.  Apparently, there were only a few FBI officials there who were helping out, and that is in part because, according to a report today in the New York Times, Malaysia has been refusing a larger-scale effort on the part of the United States.  Can you comment on those reports?  Are they accurate?  And is there anything that the United States is doing or can do to push back against that and provide more assistance with the investigation, particularly whether this was an act of terrorism?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have information on that specific report.  I can tell you that the NTSB, the FAA, and the FBI are all assisting in different ways in this effort.  The Department of Defense has obviously provided assets as part of the search effort.  I can also say that the Malaysian government has been working very hard to deal with a unique and unusual set of circumstances, and we appreciate that and understand it.  And we are working closely with the Malaysian government, and have had and appreciate good cooperation with the Malaysian government.  We’re doing everything we can to assist that investigation as that investigation seeks to find out what happened and what caused it.

So I don’t have more insight into that, except to say that we’re working closely with the Malaysian government.  We have had good cooperation in that effort.  And this is obviously a unique and challenging circumstance that everybody is involved in investigating.

Jared.

Q    Jay, right now you’ve been saying that the costs are going to be significant, that the costs are real.  Is there any indication that the costs are going to be beyond what Russia is willing to pay, beyond the cost of doing business for their foreign policy goal?  And also, has the President made any commitments to our allies or to the Russian government that Crimea will never be a part of Russia, at least through this process?

MR. CARNEY:  We’ve made clear to Russia -- as have our allies and as have most nations, and as have all the nations that voted in the United Nations Security Council -- that the referendum is not valid; any annexation, as you describe it, would not be valid.  It would not be recognized under international law.  And such an action would result in more cost to Russia through further isolation and further sanctions.  And again, going to the discussion we had earlier, the potential for those costs to be high is real.  And the nature of the power structure in Russia is such that these kinds of costs applied to individuals can and will have an impact on that structure, in our view.

It’s not necessary for further costs to be incurred if Russia assesses or reassesses the situation and decides to pull back its forces in Crimea, to engage in dialogue with the Ukrainian government.  The Ukrainian government has made clear its willingness to accept the presence of international monitors who can assess whether or not the rights of ethnic Russian citizens are in any way being violated.  There are other means, lawful means, by which Russia’s interests in Crimea and Ukraine can be protected, and that is the path by which Russia can avoid further isolation and sanction.  But the costs are real and they will grow if Russia does not change course.

Q    Is the administration at all disheartened that the Russian government seems fully willing to pay the real and significant costs of these sanctions so far?

MR. CARNEY:  Jared, I mean, that is a snapshot of today.  Russia has not changed course, there is no question.  But there are costs associated with that.  And you can see what has happened to the Russian economy, the Russian markets, the Russian currency.  You can imagine the decisions being made by the leaders of multinational corporations and other big and potential investors about the wisdom of investing in a country that flagrantly, using military personnel, violates the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation in violation of the United Nations Charter, in violation of its specific treaty obligations.  Those are real consequences. 

So we will pursue a path that continues to encourage Russia to change course, provides a set of steps that will allow Russia’s interests to be protected.  And we will continue to support the Ukrainian government and we’ll continue to raise the price on Russia for the actions it’s taken if it doesn’t change course. 

Yes, Ann.

Q    Thank you.  Is there a chance that -- well, next week when the President goes to the nuclear summit, is it your understanding that President Putin is going to pass up a chance to talk with the other world leaders there?  He’s sending Foreign Minister Lavrov.  And so do you think President Obama would like to have Vladimir Putin come hear from the rest of the world on this next week?

MR. CARNEY:  President Obama spoke with President Putin yesterday.  He’s been speaking with some regularity with President Putin about the situation in Ukraine.  So I haven’t heard anyone phrase it that way.  I think President Putin understands the position of all the nations that will be participating in that meeting and understands the views of the United States about Russia’s violation of international law.  And it’s a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

So I don’t doubt that next week there will be, while we’re in Europe, a focus on Ukraine in addition to the other business that has to get done there.  But I think President Putin understands the actions that are necessary for him to take and for the Russian government to take in order to alleviate some of the cost.

Q    There are reports that President Obama will meet with the President of China next week.

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have any updates on the schedule. 

Chris -- sorry, and then Wendell.

Q    On St. Patrick’s Day, a number of beer companies announced they wouldn’t sponsor parades in New York City and Boston as Mayors Bill de Blasio and Marty Walsh personally boycotted the ones in their own cities because LGBT contingents weren’t allowed to identify themselves as such during the march.  Does the President believe those boycotts were the right decision?

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t spoken to the President about those boycotts. 

Q    You said before, though, that the President opposes discrimination.  Wouldn’t that principle apply to these parades here?

MR. CARNEY:  The President does oppose discrimination, but I haven’t talked to him about boycotts of those parades.

Q    On Russia, if the President will impose sanctions on officials because of a military incursion into Ukraine, why hasn’t he done the same for the officials responsible for the anti-gay laws in Russia, say by freezing their assets under the Magnitsky Act?

MR. CARNEY:  We’ve made our views abundantly clear about that kind of legislation and about efforts to undermine the civil rights of Russian citizens.  But the actions we’ve taken today and the sanctions that have been announced today are focused on the very real violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity that we’ve been talking about. 

Q    And, lastly, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” enabled openly gay people to serve in the U.S. military, but transgender people are still barred because of medical regulation.  Last week, an independent commission led by a former surgeon general issued a report saying there was no “compelling medical reason” to prohibit this ban, and called on the Commander-in-Chief to lift it.  Will the President direct the Pentagon to lift the ban on transgender service?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have anything on that.  I’d have to direct you to the Pentagon at this point.

Wendell.

Q    In practical terms, Jay, what does it matter to the people of this country if the majority ethnic Russian population of Crimea wants to once again be a part of that country of Russia as they were 50, 60 years ago?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that’s a great question, Wendell, and I appreciate it.  First of all, what matters here is the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty under the United Nations Charter and under international law.  What matters is the ability of a nation to decide for itself any changes in its territory, its borders, the status of regions within its borders.  The implications of accepting Russia’s action, in not sanctioning Russia, in turning a blind eye to it, are profound for every nation, and for every nation that grapples with issues of ethnic minorities or regions that have to define their relationship to the center of the country, for example. 

So these are very important issues.  And we’re mindful of the fact that, and point out the fact that there are means by which individuals in Crimea working with the government in Kyiv can take steps to evaluate and alter their relationship with the central government.  But they have to be done in keeping with international law and in keeping with the principles embodied in the constitution of Ukraine.  So that’s why it matters and that’s why the referendum itself is not viewed as lawful or legitimate. 

Q    Is it our feeling that the referendum itself was fraudulent, i.e. fake votes cast?  Or was it the --

MR. CARNEY:  I was asked about evidence of that.  I don’t have --

Q    -- the way it was set up improper?

MR. CARNEY:  There’s no question, as we’ve said repeatedly, that the way it was conducted violates the Ukrainian constitution.  And, therefore, whatever its results, it does not and cannot -- it is not being and will not be recognized by the international community.  In terms of the conduct of the actual referendum and whether there was fraud, I don’t have further information on that because the event itself was not lawful. 

Q    And, finally, if I could push you once again on Senator McCain’s assertion that the U.S. response has been “timid,” is it the President’s contention that, well, as time goes on it will become more powerful?  Or is it his contention that it has not been timid to date?

MR. CARNEY:  I didn’t see Senator McCain’s comments.  I have noted that they have fluctuated somewhat in terms of his evaluation of the President’s performance every several days.  The President is focused on making sure that we support the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people; we rally the international community behind support for the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty; and making sure that we work together so that Russia pays a price for violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  All of those things are happening.  More costs will be incurred by Russia should it not change its course here.

And on the specific matter that was raised when it comes to other forms of assistance, we’re evaluating requests and we’re evaluating all the ways by which we can provide support to the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people.  Principally, right now, the support we can supply Ukraine and which Ukraine desperately needs is economic support, working with our international partners and the IMF.  And we are working with Congress so that Congress gets that done, so that that bilateral assistance can be provided. 

We are working with the international community to ensure that our efforts are coordinated so they have the maximum effect, both in terms of the costs that are incurred by Russia and the assistance that’s provided to the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people.  And, further, we’re working together with our partners to make sure that Russia understands that there is a path out of this confrontation that would allow it to get right with international law and ensure that its interests are acknowledged and assessed.

Jared.

Q    Thanks, Jay -- just one.  You said before that the power structure in Russia is such that these sanctions will really have an effect.  Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that it’s fair to say that in Russia there are individuals with a great deal of influence over a course of Russian governmental policy and the economy who do not hold positions in the government, for example.  So the authorities provided within the executive order signed today expands the parameters or the categories under which individuals could be targeted for sanctions.  There’s no individuals who fill those descriptions who have been targeted as of yet, but the authorities now exist, should those decisions be made.

Q    And the sanctions that you imposed there, that the U.S. imposed today -- specifically the, I guess, fact sheet on the sanctions -- specified that this doesn’t attack or it doesn’t go after any businesses or companies associated with this.  Is that possible that that might change in the future?

MR. CARNEY:  It is true that the sanctions attached to those individually named are targeted at the individuals and their individual wealth and their capacity to get visas and to avail themselves of any property or assets overseas or in the United States, in our case.  But there are European sanctions as well.

In terms of what further sanctions might be imposed, the answer is it’s certainly possible that further steps could be taken, again, in keeping with what I’ve said, which is that we will calibrate our response and raise the price, if you will, if Russia doesn’t change course.

Q    You mentioned that the sanctions in place already might make some multinational conglomerates kind of reconsider doing business with Russia.  Is the administration talking with any of those multinational companies to suggest maybe this might not be --

MR. CARNEY:  I wasn’t attempting to imply that.  I think that it’s almost self-evident that that kind of assessment would be ongoing, because investors tend to make assessments about where to put their money based on stability and transparency and rule of law in the countries where they’re investing.  And that an action like this and the approbation that Russia has suffered because of it, and the isolation and the sanctions would play into any decisions an investor might make.  I think you’ve seen that impact felt in the economy and in the stock markets and in the currency, and I think it’s likely that it will only get worse for Russia, should they consider down this path.

Stephen.

Q    When you talk about this expanded authority and say that there are individuals who have got great economic and political influence, are you suggesting that the administration could choose to target oligarchs in Russia in the future?

MR. CARNEY:  I would just point you to the language in the executive order that notes that those -- the authority to impose sanctions against individuals who have influence on those in power in governmental positions but who do not themselves hold positions in the government.

Q    You mean the crony provision, right?

MR. CARNEY:  Some have described it that way.  I didn’t see that language in the executive order.  (Laughter.)

Q    I thought it was in the executive order -- or one of the senior officials mentioned it; kind of pejorative -- you call somebody a crony.  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  It is indeed.  It is indeed.

Roger.

Q    A bit of a follow-up to Jared’s question.  You talked about the businesses and stuff like that.  Senator Barrasso was one of several in Ukraine over the weekend.  He said earlier today that the U.S. should target Russian banks and its petrochemical industry.  How would the White House view something like that in that --

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m not going to speculate about what further steps would be taken should there be further provocations from Russia or a refusal by Russia to change course, except to say that if you look at the breadth of the authorities provided by the executive orders, you can get a sense of what is possible.  But I’m not going to speculate about which future targets might exist if further action is taken.

All the way in the back.

Q    Jay, any sense -- of those who were named today -- how many of them may have assets in the United States and how much they may have in the United States?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have that information.  And to the extent that we would answer questions like that, I’d refer you to the Treasury Department, but I’m not sure that we would provide that.

George, last one.

Q    Over the weekend, Taoiseach Kenny told Irish reporters that he voiced great concern to President Obama on Friday about the year-long delay in naming an ambassador.  Why has it taken so long?  And they’re taking it as a sign of disinterest on this White House’s part in Dublin.  Why shouldn’t they?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, certainly that’s not the case.  I don’t have any updates for you on the process of selecting or naming or nominating a new ambassador to Ireland.  I know that the President values the relationship we have with the Republic of Ireland and that he has with the Taoiseach of Ireland.  But I will assure you that that relationship remains as strong as ever, I think as evidenced by the events of late last week, and that when we have an announcement to make, we will make it.

Thanks, everybody.

END
2:10 P.M. EDT

Background Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on Ukraine

Via Conference Call

9:39 A.M. EDT

MS. HAYDEN:  Good morning, everyone.  Thanks for joining us on yet another snow day here in Washington.  Hopefully, by now you’ve seen that we have put out a new executive order this morning on Ukraine, and we have a number of senior administration officials here to talk to you about that and other measures we’re taking.  This call is on background with no embargo.  Again, these are senior administration officials.  And with that, I’ll turn it over to senior administration official number one.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, everybody, for getting on the call.  I’ll just give a brief overview here and then hand it over to my colleague who can speak in greater depth about the sanctions that we’re announcing today.

First of all, President Obama has been very clear since the Russian intervention in Crimea that we, together with our European allies, would be imposing costs on Russia for its violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity even as we have made clear our openness to a diplomatic pathway to de-escalation. 

The Russians to date have continued their intervention, continued their violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  And notably, yesterday, of course, we had the so-called referendum on the future of Crimea, which took place without the participation and involvement of the government in Kyiv –- a referendum that was in violation of Ukraine’s constitution, that took place in an environment of coercion, with Russia having violated international law through its intervention in Crimea.  So today we are taking additional steps to impose costs on Russia for these actions. 

Specifically, we are continuing to impose costs for what Russia has been doing in Crimea over the last two weeks by designating individuals for their involvement in the intervention in Crimea.  But secondly, and importantly, the President has signed a new executive order that expands a scope of our sanctions to include authorization of sanctions on Russian officials, on entities operating in the arms sector in Russia, and on any individuals who provide material support to senior officials of the Russian government.  And my colleague can speak to that.

We’re doing this all in very close coordination with our European allies.  The Europeans are meeting today to review their measures.  We have been in very regular contact with our European friends over the course of the last two weeks, and we believe that our unity is critical in sending a message to Russia that it will be isolated politically and economically if it continues down this path.

Vice President Biden is leaving tonight for Europe, where he will meet with NATO allies.  In Poland, he’ll meet with not just the Polish but also the Estonians.  And then, when he travels to Lithuania, he will meet with both the leaders of Lithuania and Latvia, with the message of strong reassurance and support for the security of our NATO allies.

With that, I will turn it over to my colleague.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  And good morning, everybody.  I’d like to briefly discuss the sanctions thus taken today, and I’m happy to go into further detail in the question/answer period.

The executive order signed by the President and issued today expands on the Executive Order 13660, which the President signed about 10 days ago, on March 6th.  In some ways, the new executive order that goes into effect today creates three new authorities. It creates the ability to target officials of the Russian government; to target any individuals or entities that operate in the arms or related materials sector in the Russian Federation; an individual or entity that is owned or controlled by, that acts on behalf of or that provides material support to any senior Russian government official.  Essentially, this would allow the designation of what are commonly known as Russian government cronies.

In addition, today, the executive order lists seven Russian government officials for sanctions because of their status as Russian government officials, which, as I noted, this is the first of the three new authorities in this executive order.  These individuals have also demonstrated support for the illegitimate actions that have recently taken place in Ukraine and have contributed to the crisis there.  Any assets these individuals have within U.S. jurisdiction are frozen, and U.S. persons are prohibited from doing business with them.  And we will urge our counterparts in financial institutions and businesses around the world to shun these individuals.

These individuals are Vladislav Surkov, the presidential aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin; Sergey Glazyev, also a presidential advisor to President Putin; Leonid Slutsky, a state Duma deputy; Andrei Klishas, a member of the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, and Chairman of the Federation Council Committee of Constitutional Law, Judicial, and Legal Affairs, and the Development of Civil Society; Valentina Matviyenko, head of the Federation Council; Dmitry Rogozin, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation; and Yelena Mizulina, a state Duma deputy.

So in addition to acting under the new executive order, Treasury today has imposed sanctioned on four other individuals under Executive Order 13660, the executive order that was issued on March 6th, for their actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine, and in undermining the legitimate government of Ukraine. 

These individuals are two Crimea-based separatist leaders:  Sergey Aksyonov, who claims to be the Prime Minister of Crimea; and Vladimir Konstantinov, who has been acting as the Speaker of the Crimean parliament.  In addition, we’re imposing sanctions on Viktor Medvedchuk, who’s the leader of Ukrainian Choice; and former President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych.

The United States seeks to hold accountable individuals who use their resources or influence to support or act on behalf of senior Russian government officials.  As I noted, these are the individuals known as the cronies to the Russian government.

I want to be clear that while we will not rule out taking additional steps in the future, our current focus is to identify these cronies of the Russian government and target their personal assets and wealth, rather than the business entities and industries that they may manage or oversee. 

In closing, I’d note that President Obama has been crystal-clear that the United States will impose costs on those who undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including their actions supporting the illegal referendum for Crimean separation.  These actions are another step in following through on that commitment.  In addition, the actions taken today, including the adoption of new sanctions authorities to target Russian officials, the Russian arms industry, and the personal wealth of cronies, should serve as notice to Russia that unless it abides by its international obligations, returns its military forces to their original bases, and respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, the United States is prepared to take additional proportional and responsive steps to impose further political and economic costs.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Folks, just a couple of things to bear down a little bit more on why we chose the people that we chose for sanctioning today.  On the first conduct-based EO, I think Victor Yanukovych is self-explanatory.  Aksyonov and Kontstantinov are the two main leaders of the Crimean entity and the two major figures in Crimea responsible for pushing forward with the referendum.  Medvedchuk is the leading Ukrainian connection between the Kremlin and Crimea, and the most vocal and active ideologist on the Ukrainian side for this separatist action.

On the Russian side, we can go through this in more detail if you’d like, but each of the Russian officials sanctioned today played a leading role as an ideologist, a strategist, or an architect of the referendum strategy, and is also a leading proponent of formal annexation of Crimea by Russia and has played an active public role both in Russia and in Crimea in supporting and activating the steps that have already been taken.

Just a few fun facts about the ongoing situation in Crimea and about the vote yesterday.  There is broad speculation and some concrete evidence that ballots that arrived in Crimea for the referendum had been pre-marked in many cities.  There are massive anomalies in the vote even as its recorded, including the fact that if you believe the figures that have been published, based on the census in Sevastopol City, 123 percent of the Sevastopol population would have had to have voted “yes” for the referendum. 

Today, the Crimean Rada took further steps to join Russia.  Konstantinov declared himself the head of the interim government with Aksyonov as first minister of the council.  They also passed a decree authorizing an international treaty to join with the Russian Federation, and key Crimean leaders headed for Moscow today to begin negotiating their status.  We understand that the EU has taken action today to sanction 21 people -- their list will not be public until tomorrow.  They overlap our list in some places, but there will be slight differences in some places when they become public tomorrow.

We understand that President Putin will speak to the Russian Federal Assembly -- that’s a joint session of the Duma and the Federation Council -- tomorrow.  It is being broadly speculated in Moscow and in Russia that he will use that opportunity to recommend formal annexation of Crimea to Russia. 

Meanwhile, as official number one made clear, even as we exact costs on Russia for what it has already done and made clear to them that there will be further costs if there are further steps, whether they be political steps like annexation or more military steps including incursions into the East or South, or further efforts to seize entities outside of Crimea as we saw yesterday in Kherson Oblast with the gas plant, we are also continuing to keep the door open for deescalation, and continuing to have a dialogue with Russian senior officials about what that might look like were they willing to make serious efforts to address any legitimate concerns, politically and diplomatically, and were they willing to pull back forces and return security and stability, sovereignty and unity to Ukraine.

And then, finally, we are moving forward with our political and economic support for the transitional Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people, including continued negotiations on the IMF package, continued support through the OSCE for broad political monitoring missions across the country to provide independent witness to (inaudible) provocation into cities, to assist with demobilization of irregulars and police retraining, and to investigate some of the violent incidents of the past, and finally, to support the election -- the presidential election that is schedule for May 26th.  We expect one of the largest OSCE-ODIHR monitoring missions in recent history for those elections.

Let me pause there. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  And just to sum up, with these actions I think we’re demonstrating again that we have the ability to escalate our pressure in response to Russian actions.  Some of these actions were in response to the initial intervention in Crimea that, the designations made under the first executive order.  The new executive order gives us broader authority to respond to this so-called referendum that took place over the weekend.  And going forward, we have the ability to ramp up our pressure, or, if the Russians make a separate set of choices, to deescalate based on how events unfold. 

And with that, we’ll move to questions.    

     Q    Thank you so much.  A question I guess to the Treasury official on the call.  There were a lot of reports over the weekend that Russia’s Central Bank and many of the oligarchs were moving their money around to evade sanctions.  Can you tell us whether you think that you have any effective control with these sanctions -- certainly not in American banks -- and what coordination do you expect globally with other banking institutions as to how effective these sanctions actually will be?  What kind of deterrent is this?  Thank you so much.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We expect that these sanctions will be effective, and they’ll be effective I think in a number of different levels.  In the first instance, as I noted, the individuals who are designated today both under the new executive order and under the preexisting executive order, all of their assets are frozen.  No U.S. person can do business with them.  That will have impact on some or all of these individuals. If they want to transact in dollars, for instance, they will be unable to do so, unable to send any money through the United States. 

     More broadly, as we've seen in other circumstances, the people who we designate tend to find great difficulty in accessing financial services elsewhere in the world, particularly in Europe, particularly in the Gulf.  So to the extent any of these individuals have assets outside of Russia, in Europe or in the Gulf, or in Asia, for that matter, I think they’re going to run into difficulties.  And as my colleague noted, there’s also some overlap between the list of individuals that we're designating today and what the EU will be announcing tomorrow and we're working very hard to coordinate with our partners in the EU to have our actions as synchronized and consistent as possible.

More broadly, the actions that we're taking today have an impact in making very clear that we are imposing real costs on the Russians, on the Russian economy for the actions that have occurred and setting off very clear deterrents for actions that may be contemplated.

I’d just note that since February 20th, the Russian stock market -- since February 20th through today, the Russian stock market has declined 14.7 percent.  The ruble has depreciated almost 3 percent against the dollar.  These moves are far in excess of other indices of other economies -- comparable economies.  So what is happening here and the response to the actions that we've taken and to what we can do in the future under these new authorities I think is pretty clear and is imposing real costs.

Q    Thanks for doing the call.  So am I right that you all have sanctioned 11 -- (inaudible.)

MS. HAYDEN:  Peter, we lost you.  Can you start again?

Actually, I think we can answer what we think Peter’s question was.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Peter’s question was whether we're sanctioning 11 people altogether.  That's correct. We're sanctioning seven under the new executive order, the seven Russian government officials that I ran through earlier and that my colleague elaborated on, and then four individuals under the preexisting executive order, all for actions that threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. 

And we have the ability going forward, of course, as we build evidentiary cases on the first EO and as we calibrate our approach to Russian actions, to further populate both of these EOs with designations. And we, of course, also have the so-called crony capacity under the second EO as well.

Q    Hi, a couple of quick ones.  First of all, why wasn’t Putin named in this as far as he’s instrumental in this policy?  And do we expect that there will be more in place if Russia goes forward to recognize and actually annex Crimea?  And just an historic perspective -- is this the first time we've seen sanctions on the Russian government or individuals in the Russian government since the Cold War?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I'll take those and then my colleagues may want to add to that.  With respect to President Putin, as we said in the past, it is a highly unusual and rather extraordinary case for the United States to sanction a head of state of another country.  So we do not begin these types of sanctions efforts with a head of state.  However, if you look at the list of the seven government officials, these are clearly people who are very close to President Putin, who provide him, as my State colleague ran through, with a lot of the advice and support and implementation of the policies that we've seen in Crimea.  So there’s no question that this hits close to home in that regard.

Secondly, the ability to sanction the cronies who provide support to the Russian government really gets at individuals who have dedicated significant resources in supporting President Putin and the policies of the Russian government in the past.  So, again, I think it's a very clear message that we will hold those responsible accountable for the actions of the Russian government.

In terms of your second question, yes, if the Russians continue to move forward with policies that escalate the situation we would continue to be able to designate individuals and pursue the sanctions that we announced today as well as to contemplate additional actions.  So we will be calibrating very much our response in terms of sanctions to the actions that Russia takes in the coming days.

I'll leave it to my colleague to get to the historical perspective.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Historically, there was at least one sanction on a Russian entity with respect to Iran issues.  But these are by far the most comprehensive sanctions applied to Russia since the end of the Cold War -- far and away so.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And I’d note by comparison, for instance, that there were comparable sanctions after the Georgia intervention.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That's quite true.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Can I add a couple things here -- just to say that if you look at the list of Russians who are being sanctioned here, as I said, they are the key ideologists and implementers and architects of this policy, but they are also key players, politically, in Russia in terms of advocating tightening down of human rights and individual liberties within Russia itself.  A large number of the seven are very personally close to the Kremlin and to President Putin and worked directly to implement the more draconian policies inside Russia and beyond.

Let me just add a couple more fun facts that I've just gotten on the ballot yesterday:  96.8 percent of those who cast ballots in Crimea supported succession.  The turnout was 83.1.  The election commission didn’t receive a single complaint, and 99 percent of Crimean Tatars declined to vote. 

And also I would call your attention to a comment just on the wires from Russian Deputy Economic Minister Belyakov that, “The Russian economy shows clear signs of crisis” this morning.  Deputy Economic Minister Belyakov.

Q    Thank you.  A couple quick questions.  Is there any concerns that Russia now may retaliate with either reciprocal sanctions or that the response could bleed into its level of cooperation on other issues such as the Iran nuclear talks, Syria chemical weapons, Afghan withdrawal and the like?  And on top of that, did the President, during his call with President Putin yesterday, tell him specifically the sanctions that were coming? Did he give him any warning of this?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll take a crack at some of that.  First of all, I think on the President’s call to President Putin, he broadly indicated the types of -- the fact that we were going to be moving to impose additional costs -- I wouldn’t get any more specific than that -- again, at the same time, making clear that there’s a pathway to de-escalation.  As you’ve heard him say, we could allow international monitors into Ukraine, including Crimea, to assure that the rights of ethnic Russians are being protected.

Given that Ukraine has an election plan for the spring, given that the Ukrainian government has indicated publicly their willingness to look at constitutional reform, including the status of Crimea, that there is, again, a pathway that could be taken to deescalate this crisis, but only if the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine is respected.

With respect to other issues, look, clearly we’re willing to indicate that this is going to have costs in our bilateral relationship.  We’ve already cancelled trade and commercial discussions, the bilateral military exercises, G8 preparatory meetings.  But if you look at the scope of those other issues, on the Syria chemical weapons issue, Russia is deeply invested in that project and, in fact, we’ve seen a picking up of the pace in terms of the removal of the CW from Syria. 

Similarly, on Iran, Russia would only be further isolating itself were it to cease cooperation through the P5-plus-1, and Russia has its own interests in avoiding an escalation of events in the Persian Gulf or nuclear proliferation.  I’d note, too, for the Iranians, their profound interest is to gain access to European markets and the global economy through sanctions relief, so they have an interest, too, in seeing that the entire P5-plus-1 is invested in a comprehensive resolution that deals with sanctions relief.

So while we expect this to impact our bilateral relationship, in some of those other areas Russia has its own interests for their participation, and we’re going to continue to pursue those objectives.

In terms of retaliation, look, we’ve seen this in the past, for instance on the Magnitsky sanction.  We’re confident that we can impose costs on Russia and that it’s necessary to do so, and that, frankly, Russia stands a lot more to lose from political and economic isolation than the United States.  And in fact, that’s borne out not just by the economic indicators that my colleague referenced in terms of a plummeting stock market and depreciating currency, but also the fact that the world is with us. 

I’d note, just over the weekend, that at the U.N. Security Council, 13 countries voted to declare this referendum illegal.  China, a traditional supporter of Russia on the Council, abstained, which is a very unusual action for them to take.  So in terms of who’s isolated here, the United States is leading a united international community in condemnation of this action while Russia finds itself alone in insisting upon of the legitimacy of their intervention in Ukraine.

Q    Yes, thank you so much for this call.  There are already a lot of reactions on Twitter, for instance, from people about what you announced, and people are asking these questions: Do you think it’s going to be enough, and do you have a deadline in mind if it does not work?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So the actions that we’ve taken today are responses to what has transpired thus far.  As we’ve said, the executive order that was issued on March 6th and the new executive order issued today is flexible and allows us to impose additional sanctions across a range of different authorities, whether it’s Russian government officials, the Russian arms industry and the cronies who are close to the scene of Russian government officials, as well as those who are continuing to threaten the sovereignty of Ukraine.

So as events develop, we can and will respond through these sanctions tools that the President has ordered. 

Q    I think you may have just clarified that, so forgive me if I’m asking substantially the same thing.  But for now, there are 11 people only sanctioned, and the executive order just broadens the pool of people you can sanction in the future?  So when the order says it also blocks the property and interests of those determined below, they are not sanctioned immediately, that’s a possibility in the future, is that correct?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There are seven individuals in the new executive order who have been sanctioned and four under the preexisting executive order who are being sanctioned today.  These two executive orders create the authority, the tool for us to take action against others whose conduct fits within any of the criteria listed in the executive order or who are senior Russian government officials.

We’re going to continue to investigate the situation, develop the evidence of those who are involved in the activities that are described in these executive orders.  And we have the -- now have the ability to expand the lists of those persons and entities that are involved in the conduct that the executive orders describe and involved in threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine -- 

Q    And the EU has sanctioned -- sorry, pardon me -- the EU has sanctioned 21 individual apparently, just now.  Is there a reason why the U.S. has 11 and that they’re not more coordinated in numbers?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We have been discussing the issue of sanctions in this case with the European Union quite closely.  They have 28 governments who coordinate and come to a final decision.  Our lists overlap; they’re not identical.  We will be looking -- as my colleague said, we will be looking at the possibility of additional sanctions as we develop new information and should Russian activities increase in intensity and should they not avail themselves of the off-ramp that is available to them. 

We could have chosen additional people.  We chose the people we chose now.  The European Union, looking at the same set of circumstances, made slightly different choices in some areas, but the lists have overlap both in terms of names and in terms of categories of people, though they are, as I said, not identical.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Can I just one final point on that, which is that in other circumstances where we have overlapping sanctions authorities with the European Union, our list of persons and entities designated are not typically perfectly identical, but nonetheless, the combined efforts of the U.S. and the European Union in applying sanctions and driving in the same direction has a real multiplying impact.  And so I think it’s not -- no one should get too hung up on perfect parity between the lists.  The fact that both the United States and the European Union are acting together today to make very clear that what has transpired in Ukraine is illegitimate is a critical point.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I would also note that until the EU publishes its list, it’s hard for us to explain the differences in the approaches that we took.  There is a considerable amount of overlap, but we have some categories that they don’t have and they have some categories that we don’t have. But there is this opportunity to bring convergence to the list, and as the first speaker made clear, there is impact in Europe on the individuals that we have sanctioned and there’s impact in the United States on the individuals that they have sanctioned.

But just to add to this, that we have made absolutely clear to the Russian Federation at all levels that if there are further steps to formally annex Crimea, to apply more military pressure or to incur further into Ukraine, or if diplomacy is not successful in deescalating this, that we have the authority in the EO that’s published today to do considerably more -- just to underscore again this to, A, that allows the sanctioning of further officials in the Russians; to, B, that allows us to work against the arms and materials sector of the Russian Federation.   

Q    I wonder if you could comment on this proposal that Russia has been circulating about diplomatic negotiations that would turn Ukraine into a federated republic, as a way of giving autonomy not only to Crimea but to other sections of Ukraine?  Is this something that the Ukrainian government or you and your allies would consider even talking about?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll start and then my colleague may want to comment, too.  I think the fundamental point here is that the government in Kyiv has to be a part of these discussions.  And thus far, the Russian government has not engaged constructively with the government in Kyiv.  As we’ve made very clear, the days are long past when world powers meet and make decisions about the future of democratic countries over the heads of the leaders of those countries. 

At the same time, the Ukrainian government has made clear that they are open to discussions about constitutional reform, that there is an election coming this spring which provides the basis for the Ukrainian people making these decisions and that as a part of that process of reform, they’re willing to contemplate questions associated with autonomy, for instance, for a region like Crimea. 

So there is a space here for a diplomatic discussion on these issues, and that is a key point that we’ve made in our engagement to Russia, that given the fact that you have a government in Kyiv that is willing to address issues associated with constitutional reform, that that should provide the basis for deescalation.  However, that should not take place in the context of Russia intervening militarily and violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.  So they should pull back to their bases and allow for an environment where you can have a constructive, diplomatic process. 

And so that will continue to be our position.  And, again, the key principle is that the government of Kyiv has to be at the table here in making any decisions about the future of Ukraine.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Just to say, if you were looking at the March 11th proposal on a support group for Ukraine that the Russian Federation made public yesterday, I would just underscore that the vast majority of the items on that list that the Russians put forward are already underway in Ukraine under the auspices of the transitional government or the Ukrainian parliament. 

For example, there is a long section in the Russian document about constitutional reform.  On March 4th, the Ukrainian parliament, the Rada, adopted a resolution establishing a temporary special commission to amend the constitution of Ukraine by April 15th.  And there is a commission now formed which includes every single party in the Ukrainian system and representatives from across the region who are now working on a set of amendments to the constitution to address everything from minority rights to developed power to the region, to enhanced autonomy for Crimea. 

So there is a way proceed with legitimate devolution of power to the region, legitimate autonomy for Crimea, protection of ethnic minorities and languages through a Ukrainian process that has broad national support in Ukraine.  The problem with the Russian documents is that if you look at the end, it sets all of its demands in the context of a post-Crimea referendum Ukraine. So the concern here is that this is not a proposal targeted at addressing legitimate concerns inside of Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, but it’s a proposal for Russia to interject itself into Ukraine’s business after having already annexed Crimea. 

MS. HAYDEN:  Thanks, everyone.  A reminder that the call was on background with your speakers as senior administration officials. 

Thanks for joining us, and everyone have a great day.   

END
10:20 A.M. EDT