Dmitry Rogozin is the deputy prime minister of Russia who has been one of the individuals in Russia who has been targeted by US and European sanctions.  He has a Twitter account and used it to goad President Obama by suggesting that the sanctions would not affect his position on Ukraine at all.  His rhetoric is flowery and I recommend reading some of his tweets.  My favorite?   “I’ll ask you to send me your teeth ground in impotent rage”.  I think Rogozin needs to get in touch with his inner child.

Afghanistan is holding its national elections on Sunday, and there are eight candidates vying for the presidency.  Violence has spiked in the country as the Taliban tries to disrupt the election, deeming it an illegitimate exercise in US imperialism.   The outcome of the election will determine the terms of the American withdrawal from the country.  At stake is the possibility that the US will continue to support the humanitarian efforts even without direct military support.

The Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations are not being carried out in a vacuum.  The Daily Star is a highly regarded newspaper in the Middle East and its editorial today strongly urged the Palestinians to withdraw from the negotiations.   If such sentiment is widespread in the Arab world, it will be difficult for the Palestinians to make any concessions in the negotiations.

The negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians seem close to breaking down completely.  There are some ways the breakdown can be avoided, and one cannot dismiss the idea of a 11th hour revival–one negotiating tactic is to bring the discussions to a breaking point with a last minute “concession.”  But these negotiations seem to be more opaque than most.  It is impossible to figure out the difference between posturing and genuine positions.  In some sense, the negotiations have also been distorted by the mediating role of the US.  It seems apparent that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have lost faith in the US.

As the Indian election approaches, most polls are indicating that Narendra Modi, the BJP candidate, is likely to win.  It is difficult to determine what Modi’s foreign policy might be, but Ankit Panda has written an essay on how Hindu nationalism might guide Modi’s approach to world affairs.  The policy will certainly be different from traditional Indian foreign policy.

Apparently, the US has established a Twitter account to spread stories in Cuba that would undermine the regime.  The US and Cuba have been enemies since 1961, and, in that year, the US placed an embargo around Cuba to place economic pressure to topple the Castro regime.  Since then, the US has tried to assassinate Castro, invaded Cuba, and isolated Cuba from global interactions.  All the policies of the US have failed to change the regime, and this latest attempt to induce political change in Cuba is simply an index of the futility of the policy.  Normalized relations between the two states are long overdue.

Do not ever underestimate the importance of territory to the nation-state, and the signal importance of maps to buttress territorial claims. German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a gift to Chinese President Xi Jinping of a map of China that omitted some sensitive territories–the Chinese response was to publish copies of a completely different map.

Merkel’s Map

The map that the Chinese people saw:

Russia and Iran are working to complete a $20 billion oil-for-goods agreement in which Iran would sell oil to Russia.  The agreement would sound a death knell to the current sanctions regime  against Iran and suggests that Russia is breaking ranks with the West on the Iranian nuclear program.  One can only hope that Iran will continue to negotiate in good faith or it is likely that Israel will conclude that the current negotiations have no chance of success.  If it comes to that conclusion, then Israel would probably take unilateral action to disarm Iran.

We are precariously close to a complete breakdown of the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.  Israel has not released the final batch of Palestinian prisoners it currently holds that was promised as a condition for continuing the talks.  In retaliation, Palestinian President Abbas has threatened to pursue membership in 15 UN agencies which would solidify Palestinian claims to statehood (importantly, the International Criminal Court is not one of those agencies).  US Secretary of State Kerry is desperately trying to salvage the negotiations, but the current atmosphere is grim.

The Council on Foreign Relations has published an excellent review of the international issues surrounding the Arctic–an emerging region in world affairs due to climate change and the melting of the ice at the North Pole.   Unfortunately, the issues are surfacing sooner than expected as relations between the US and Russia.  Both are interested in the Arctic and have somewhat competing claims.  Additionally, ExxonMobil is exploring for oil and gas in the Arctic and he US does not wish to impose sanctions that might jeopardize those activities.

The Guardian has an interesting essay on the changing nature of protests in the world today.  Specifically, it asks the question why European young people have seemingly stopped protesting.  It is a curious phenomenon since the economic situation in Europe remains grim and static.  But the question is worth pondering in the context of the rather large spike in protests all across the globe and the somewhat quiet period we seem to be entering.

From the Financial Times:

Europe’s banks hold more sovereign debt than at any time since the eurozone crisis, fuelling worries about the potentially destabilising interdependency between the region’s financial institutions and national governments.

Eurozone banks have added to their holdings of government debt, as a percentage of assets, nearly every month since the beginning of 2012, according to data from the European Central Bank.

Government debt accounted for 5.8 per cent of their combined assets in February, up from 4.3 per cent in January 2012, despite warnings by European regulators to tackle a swelling “sovereign-bank” nexus.

Although the data records all government bonds, analysts say most of the increases are in holdings of banks’ domestic government debt, raising the spectre that increasing numbers of lenders are simply “too big to fail”, according to Eva Olsson, director of credit strategy at Mitsubishi UFJ Securities.

“‘Too big to fail’ hasn’t gone away, and it is increasing to some extent,” she said.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued its latest report on climate change, and its forecast is pretty grim.   The thrust of the report is that climate change is already occurring and that the world really has to focus not simply on how to mitigate the changes, but also to manage them.  On the issue of food production and fresh water, those areas of the world that are currently being affected can only look forward to a much more difficult future.  This essay in the Economist is a very intelligent and measured analysis of the report–sober but not hysterical.

French President Francois Hollande has changed some of the ministers in his government after municipal elections in which his party lost substantial ground.  The right-wing National Front took a number of municipalities, playing upon anti-immigrant sentiment in France as well as dismay over the slow but steady deterioration of the French economy.  Hollande has not been able to establish his credentials and has one of the lowest favorable ratings of any post-World War II French leader.  It is hard to imagine the European economy gaining any steam unless the French economy were to pick up.

North and South Korea exchanged artillery fire as the US and South Korea conducted joint military operations near the demilitarized zone.   It is not unusual for North Korea to try to disrupt those activities, but the exchange of fire is a clear escalation of traditional activities.  Moreover, the exchange comes on the heels of a North Korean threat to test another nuclear weapon despite the UN’s demand that it cease those tests.  It seems as if we’re in for another round of North Korean challenges to its neighbors.

At the end of World War II the US helped establish three economic institutions to regulate the global economy: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and what is now known as the World Trade Organization.  These institutions were set up to enforce and facilitate the rules of market capitalism, and membership in these organizations is, theoretically, voluntary.  But the US was also careful to craft the rules of these institutions in a manner which guaranteed that the US would have a dominant voice in their governance.   By the standard of economic growth, these institutions have been incredibly successful (perhaps less successful by other measures such as economic development).  However, the US seems to be reducing its support for these institutions in recent years even as the global economy seems to be struggling a great deal.  The strategy is probably the worst one to follow at this time, but the appetite of the American Congress to honor its commitment to these global institutions is diminishing at a rapid pace.

On the other hand, the US helped introduce new patterns to world politics in 1945 by working hard with others to create the United Nations.  The UN, on the whole, has not been the success that many had hoped for.  But it has had a dramatic effect on the incidence of aggressive war.  Fareed Zakaria is a perceptive observer of world politics and has written a great essay on how the Russian annexation of Crimea is a throwback to pre-UN rules.

The Philippines and China are playing a cat-and-mouse game in the South China Sea.   In 1999 the Philippines rammed a World War II transport chip into a reef called the Second Thomas Shoal, and stationed Filipino sailors on the rusted-out vessel (there are 8 sailors who endure three-month tours on the wreck).  The purpose is to establish its claim to sovereignty on the reef.  But it also means that the Philippines must make supply runs to their sailors periodically.   The Chinese try to prevent those runs, and the Filipinos try to evade the Chinese blockade.  This month the Filipinos were successful.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated publicly that Russia has no intention of conducting any more military operations inside Ukraine.  Yet there remains a deep suspicion of this statement, particularly among the US intelligence services.  Foreign Policy has published an article listing 10 reasons not to believe President Putin and outlines the reasons to suspect that Russia will in fact intervene and seize territory in Ukraine.  Unfortunately, if Russia does invade, the Ukrainians will be standing alone.

In a second attack in a week, Taliban insurgents have launched an attack in Kabul, targeting the Afghanistan election commission offices.   The attackers, disguised as women in burqas, used rocket propelled grenades and heavy machine guns to attack the offices.  After a four-hour standoff, Afghan army units killed the attackers.  But the message was clear:  the upcoming elections in Afghanistan will be accompanied by a great deal of violence as the Taliban try to delegitimize the elections.

Cases of the Ebola virus have been detected in West Africa.  Cases of the deadly virus have been found in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea.  Unfortunately, there have been many cases in Guinea’s capital city, Conakry, and the conditions in the city are highly favorable to rapid transmission of the virus.  In some cases, the fatality rate for the Ebola virus is 90% and the effective treatment of the disease requires very intensive medical attention.

The United Nations General Assembly voted, as 100 votes in favor, 11 against and 58 abstentions, that the secession resolution in Crimea had “no validity.”  Apparently, Russia pressured former Soviet states quite heavily to vote against the resolution.   Russia applied “political blackmail and economic threats” to persuade them to vote against the resolution.  Great power pressure before such votes is not at all unusual even though votes in the General Assembly are not binding.  Nonetheless, the vote is a repudiation of Russian policy.

US President Obama met with Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah in an attempt to repair some seriously damaged relations.  The Saudis resent the US overtures to Iran, and are disappointed that the US is not helping Syrian rebels to overthrow the government of President Assad in Syria.  In those meetings, it is rumored that Obama promised to send advanced anti-aircraft weaponry to the Syrian rebels, a move that the US has resisted because of the worry that these weapons might fall into the hands of Islamic militants who would use the weapons against US aircraft.   The US has been desperately trying to forge relations with Syrian rebels that do not share the same politics of the more radical elements of the rebel movement.  The rumor, if true, might suggest that the overtures have been successful; it may, however, also suggest that the US is more willing to take risks to oust the Russian-backed Assad regime.

The right-wing National Front Party has won a number of municipal elections in France, raising the possibility of a very strong showing nationally.  What is most interesting is that the far-right and the far-left parties did very well in the elections and the centrist parties lost substantial ground.   Such political outcomes are perfectly consistent with a deepening sense of economic malaise–people tend to seek out more radical solutions as the economic situation declines.  The trend, however, is deeply disquieting.

According to intelligence reports, Russia continues to buildup its forces along the eastern and southern border of Ukraine.   Russia’s initial explanation for the force buildup was that its troops were conducting a training exercise.  But they do not seem to be training, and there are reports that many of the Russian soldiers are not wearing Russian uniforms and bear no insignia.  It is difficult to interpret these actions, but Western governments are taking few chances and are interpreting them as indications that there may be further Russian incursions into Ukrainian territory.

Turkey added YouTube to its list of banned internet sites.  It did so after a reported video was posted suggesting that Prime Minister Erdogan was suggesting military action against Syria.  The audio was apparently captured by a high-tech remote listening device, and it was of four advisers to Erdogan discussing the possibility of an attack on forces in Syria.  One source (unfortunately, I don’t speak Turkish so I cannot verify the authenticity of the translation) had one of the advisers saying “Between you and me, the prime minister said over the telephone that this (attack) should be used as an opportunity when needed.”  Additionally, the virtue of such an attack before the upcoming Turkish elections was allegedly discussed.

The Philippines and Vietnam are talking about building closer military relations to act as a counterweight to growing Chinese power in South East Asia.   The move is not a surprise and is a good example of how the balance of power works.  It does not appear as if the negotiations are far advanced, but the discussion could pave the way to closer relations for the two powers.

US President Obama gave a speech to young people in Brussels which has been labeled his “Contest of Ideas” speech.  It is a remarkable speech that summarizes in great detail the evolution of liberalism and his firm belief that those ideals must be defended.  I’ve copied the speech so that everyone has the chance to read it.

Remarks by the President in Address to European Youth

 Palais des Beaux Arts

Brussels, Belgium

6:16 P.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you so much.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Please, please have a seat.  Good evening.  Goede avond.  Bonsoir.  Guten abend.  (Applause.)  Thank you, Laura, for that remarkable introduction.  Before she came out she told me not to be nervous.  (Laughter.)  And I can only imagine — I think her father is in the audience, and I can only imagine how proud he is of her.  We’re grateful for her work, but she’s also reminding us that our future will be defined by young people like her.

Your Majesties, Mr. Prime Minister, and the people of Belgium — on behalf of the American people, we are grateful for your friendship.  We stand together as inseparable allies, and I thank you for your wonderful hospitality.  I have to admit it is easy to love a country famous for chocolate and beer.  (Laughter.)

Leaders and dignitaries of the European Union; representatives of our NATO Alliance; distinguished guests:  We meet here at a moment of testing for Europe and the United States, and for the international order that we have worked for generations to build.

Throughout human history, societies have grappled with fundamental questions of how to organize themselves, the proper relationship between the individual and the state, the best means to resolve inevitable conflicts between states.  And it was here in Europe, through centuries of struggle — through war and Enlightenment, repression and revolution — that a particular set of ideals began to emerge:  The belief that through conscience and free will, each of us has the right to live as we choose.  The belief that power is derived from the consent of the governed, and that laws and institutions should be established to protect that understanding.  And those ideas eventually inspired a band of colonialists across an ocean, and they wrote them into the founding documents that still guide America today, including the simple truth that all men — and women — are created equal.

But those ideals have also been tested — here in Europe and around the world.  Those ideals have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power.  This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign. Often, this alternative vision roots itself in the notion that by virtue of race or faith or ethnicity, some are inherently superior to others, and that individual identity must be defined by “us” versus “them,” or that national greatness must flow not by what a people stand for, but by what they are against.

In many ways, the history of Europe in the 20th century represented the ongoing clash of these two sets of ideas, both within nations and among nations.  The advance of industry and technology outpaced our ability to resolve our differences peacefully, and even among the most civilized of societies, on the surface we saw a descent into barbarism.

This morning at Flanders Field, I was reminded of how war between peoples sent a generation to their deaths in the trenches and gas of the First World War.  And just two decades later, extreme nationalism plunged this continent into war once again — with populations enslaved, and great cities reduced to rubble, and tens of millions slaughtered, including those lost in the Holocaust.

It is in response to this tragic history that, in the aftermath of World War II, America joined with Europe to reject the darker forces of the past and build a new architecture of peace.  Workers and engineers gave life to the Marshall Plan. Sentinels stood vigilant in a NATO Alliance that would become the strongest the world has ever known.  And across the Atlantic, we embraced a shared vision of Europe — a vision based on representative democracy, individual rights, and a belief that nations can meet the interests of their citizens through trade and open markets; a social safety net and respect for those of different faiths and backgrounds.

For decades, this vision stood in sharp contrast to life on the other side of an Iron Curtain.  For decades, a contest was waged, and ultimately that contest was won — not by tanks or missiles, but because our ideals stirred the hearts of Hungarians who sparked a revolution; Poles in their shipyards who stood in Solidarity; Czechs who waged a Velvet Revolution without firing a shot; and East Berliners who marched past the guards and finally tore down that wall.

Today, what would have seemed impossible in the trenches of Flanders, the rubble of Berlin, or a dissident’s prison cell — that reality is taken for granted.  A Germany unified.  The nations of Central and Eastern Europe welcomed into the family of democracies.  Here in this country, once the battleground of Europe, we meet in the hub of a Union that brings together age-old adversaries in peace and cooperation.  The people of Europe, hundreds of millions of citizens — east, west, north, south — are more secure and more prosperous because we stood together for the ideals we share.

And this story of human progress was by no means limited to Europe.  Indeed, the ideals that came to define our alliance also inspired movements across the globe among those very people, ironically, who had too often been denied their full rights by Western powers.  After the Second World War, people from Africa to India threw off the yoke of colonialism to secure their independence.  In the United States, citizens took freedom rides and endured beatings to put an end to segregation and to secure their civil rights.  As the Iron Curtain fell here in Europe, the iron fist of apartheid was unclenched, and Nelson Mandela emerged upright, proud, from prison to lead a multiracial democracy.  Latin American nations rejected dictatorship and built new democracies, and Asian nations showed that development and democracy could go hand in hand.

Young people in the audience today, young people like Laura, were born in a place and a time where there is less conflict, more prosperity and more freedom than any time in human history. But that’s not because man’s darkest impulses have vanished.  Even here, in Europe, we’ve seen ethnic cleansing in the Balkans that shocked the conscience.

The difficulties of integration and globalization, recently amplified by the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes, strained the European project and stirred the rise of a politics that too often targets immigrants or gays or those who seem somehow different.

While technology has opened up vast opportunities for trade and innovation and cultural understanding, it’s also allowed terrorists to kill on a horrifying scale.  Around the world, sectarian warfare and ethnic conflicts continue to claim thousands of lives.  And once again, we are confronted with the belief among some that bigger nations can bully smaller ones to get their way — that recycled maxim that might somehow makes right.

So I come here today to insist that we must never take for granted the progress that has been won here in Europe and advanced around the world, because the contest of ideas continues for your generation.  And that’s what’s at stake in Ukraine today.  Russia’s leadership is challenging truths that only a few weeks ago seemed self-evident — that in the 21st century, the borders of Europe cannot be redrawn with force, that international law matters, that people and nations can make their own decisions about their future.

To be honest, if we defined our interests narrowly, if we applied a cold-hearted calculus, we might decide to look the other way.  Our economy is not deeply integrated with Ukraine’s. Our people and our homeland face no direct threat from the invasion of Crimea.  Our own borders are not threatened by Russia’s annexation.  But that kind of casual indifference would ignore the lessons that are written in the cemeteries of this continent.  It would allow the old way of doing things to regain a foothold in this young century.  And that message would be heard not just in Europe, but in Asia and the Americas, in Africa and the Middle East.

And the consequences that would arise from complacency are not abstractions.  The impact that they have on the lives of real people — men and women just like us — have to enter into our imaginations.  Just look at the young people of Ukraine who were determined to take back their future from a government rotted by corruption — the portraits of the fallen shot by snipers, the visitors who pay their respects at the Maidan.  There was the university student, wrapped in the Ukrainian flag, expressing her hope that “every country should live by the law.”  A postgraduate student, speaking of her fellow protestors, saying, “I want these people who are here to have dignity.”  Imagine that you are the young woman who said, “there are some things that fear, police sticks and tear gas cannot destroy.”

We’ve never met these people, but we know them.  Their voices echo calls for human dignity that rang out in European streets and squares for generations.  Their voices echo those around the world who at this very moment fight for their dignity. These Ukrainians rejected a government that was stealing from the people instead of serving them, and are reaching for the same ideals that allow us to be here today.

None of us can know for certain what the coming days will bring in Ukraine, but I am confident that eventually those voices — those voices for human dignity and opportunity and individual rights and rule of law — those voices ultimately will triumph.  I believe that over the long haul, as nations that are free, as free people, the future is ours.  I believe this not because I’m naïve, and I believe this not because of the strength of our arms or the size of our economies, I believe this because these ideals that we affirm are true; these ideals are universal.

Yes, we believe in democracy — with elections that are free and fair; and independent judiciaries and opposition parties; civil society and uncensored information so that individuals can make their own choices.  Yes, we believe in open economies based on free markets and innovation, and individual initiative and entrepreneurship, and trade and investment that creates a broader prosperity.  And, yes, we believe in human dignity — that every person is created equal, no matter who you are, or what you look like, or who you love, or where you come from.  That is what we believe.  That’s what makes us strong.

And our enduring strength is also reflected in our respect for an international system that protects the rights of both nations and people — a United Nations and a Universal Declaration of Human Rights; international law and the means to enforce those laws.  But we also know that those rules are not self-executing; they depend on people and nations of goodwill continually affirming them.  And that’s why Russia’s violation of international law — its assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity — must be met with condemnation.  Not because we’re trying to keep Russia down, but because the principles that have meant so much to Europe and the world must be lifted up.

Over the last several days, the United States, Europe, and our partners around the world have been united in defense of these ideals, and united in support of the Ukrainian people. Together, we’ve condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and rejected the legitimacy of the Crimean referendum.  Together, we have isolated Russia politically, suspending it from the G8 nations and downgrading our bilateral ties.  Together, we are imposing costs through sanctions that have left a mark on Russia and those accountable for its actions.  And if the Russian leadership stays on its current course, together we will ensure that this isolation deepens.  Sanctions will expand.  And the toll on Russia’s economy, as well as its standing in the world, will only increase.

And meanwhile, the United States and our allies will continue to support the government of Ukraine as they chart a democratic course.  Together, we are going to provide a significant package of assistance that can help stabilize the Ukrainian economy, and meet the basic needs of the people.  Make no mistake:  Neither the United States, nor Europe has any interest in controlling Ukraine.  We have sent no troops there.  What we want is for the Ukrainian people to make their own decisions, just like other free people around the world.

Understand, as well, this is not another Cold War that we’re entering into.  After all, unlike the Soviet Union, Russia leads no bloc of nations, no global ideology.  The United States and NATO do not seek any conflict with Russia.  In fact, for more than 60 years, we have come together in NATO — not to claim other lands, but to keep nations free.  What we will do — always — is uphold our solemn obligation, our Article 5 duty to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our allies.  And in that promise we will never waver; NATO nations never stand alone.

Today, NATO planes patrol the skies over the Baltics, and we’ve reinforced our presence in Poland.  And we’re prepared to do more.  Going forward, every NATO member state must step up and carry its share of the burden by showing the political will to invest in our collective defense, and by developing the capabilities to serve as a source of international peace and security.

Of course, Ukraine is not a member of NATO — in part because of its close and complex history with Russia.  Nor will Russia be dislodged from Crimea or deterred from further escalation by military force.  But with time, so long as we remain united, the Russian people will recognize that they cannot achieve security, prosperity and the status that they seek through brute force.  And that’s why, throughout this crisis, we will combine our substantial pressure on Russia with an open door for diplomacy.  I believe that for both Ukraine and Russia, a stable peace will come through de-escalation — direct dialogue between Russia and the government of Ukraine and the international community; monitors who can ensure that the rights of all Ukrainians are protected; a process of constitutional reform within Ukraine; and free and fair elections this spring.

So far, Russia has resisted diplomatic overtures, annexing Crimea and massing large forces along Ukraine’s border.  Russia has justified these actions as an effort to prevent problems on its own borders and to protect ethnic Russians inside Ukraine.  Of course, there is no evidence, and never has been, of systemic violence against ethnic Russians inside of Ukraine.  Moreover, many countries around the world face similar questions about their borders and ethnic minorities abroad, about sovereignty and self-determination.  These are tensions that have led in other places to debate and democratic referendums, conflicts and uneasy co-existence.  These are difficult issues, and it is precisely because these questions are hard that they must be addressed through constitutional means and international laws so that majorities cannot simply suppress minorities, and big countries cannot simply bully the small.

In defending its actions, Russian leaders have further claimed Kosovo as a precedent — an example they say of the West interfering in the affairs of a smaller country, just as they’re doing now.  But NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years.  And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbors.  None of that even came close to happening in Crimea.

Moreover, Russia has pointed to America’s decision to go into Iraq as an example of Western hypocrisy.  Now, it is true that the Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate not just around the world, but in the United States as well.  I participated in that debate and I opposed our military intervention there.  But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system.  We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory.  We did not grab its resources for our own gain.  Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state that could make decisions about its own future.

Of course, neither the United States nor Europe are perfect in adherence to our ideals, nor do we claim to be the sole arbiter of what is right or wrong in the world.  We are human, after all, and we face difficult choices about how to exercise our power.  But part of what makes us different is that we welcome criticism, just as we welcome the responsibilities that come with global leadership.

We look to the East and the South and see nations poised to play a growing role on the world stage, and we consider that a good thing.  It reflects the same diversity that makes us stronger as a nation and the forces of integration and cooperation that Europe has advanced for decades.  And in a world of challenges that are increasingly global, all of us have an interest in nations stepping forward to play their part — to bear their share of the burden and to uphold international norms.

So our approach stands in stark contrast to the arguments coming out of Russia these days.  It is absurd to suggest — as a steady drumbeat of Russian voices do — that America is somehow conspiring with fascists inside of Ukraine or failing to respect the Russian people.  My grandfather served in Patton’s Army, just as many of your fathers and grandfathers fought against fascism. We Americans remember well the unimaginable sacrifices made by the Russian people in World War II, and we have honored those sacrifices.

Since the end of the Cold War, we have worked with Russia under successive administrations to build ties of culture and commerce and international community not as a favor to Russia, but because it was in our national interests.  And together, we’ve secured nuclear materials from terrorists.  We welcomed Russia into the G8 and the World Trade Organization.  From the reduction of nuclear arms to the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons, we believe the world has benefited when Russia chooses to cooperate on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect.

So America, and the world and Europe, has an interest in a strong and responsible Russia, not a weak one.  We want the Russian people to live in security, prosperity and dignity like everyone else — proud of their own history.  But that does not mean that Russia can run roughshod over its neighbors.  Just because Russia has a deep history with Ukraine does not mean it should be able to dictate Ukraine’s future.  No amount of propaganda can make right something that the world knows is wrong.

In the end, every society must chart its own course. America’s path or Europe’s path is not the only ways to reach freedom and justice.  But on the fundamental principle that is at stake here — the ability of nations and peoples to make their own choices — there can be no going back.  It’s not America that filled the Maidan with protesters — it was Ukrainians.  No foreign forces compelled the citizens of Tunis and Tripoli to rise up — they did so on their own.  From the Burmese parliamentarian pursuing reform to the young leaders fighting corruption and intolerance in Africa, we see something irreducible that all of us share as human beings — a truth that will persevere in the face of violence and repression and will ultimately overcome.

For the young people here today, I know it may seem easy to see these events as removed from our lives, remote from our daily routines, distant from concerns closer to home.  I recognize that both in the United States and in much of Europe there’s more than enough to worry about in the affairs of our own countries.  There will always be voices who say that what happens in the wider world is not our concern, nor our responsibility.  But we must never forget that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom.  Our democracy, our individual opportunity only exists because those who came before us had the wisdom and the courage to recognize that our ideals will only endure if we see our self-interest in the success of other peoples and other nations.

Now is not the time for bluster.  The situation in Ukraine, like crises in many parts of the world, does not have easy answers nor a military solution.  But at this moment, we must meet the challenge to our ideals — to our very international order — with strength and conviction.

And it is you, the young people of Europe, young people like Laura, who will help decide which way the currents of our history will flow.  Do not think for a moment that your own freedom, your own prosperity, that your own moral imagination is bound by the limits of your community, your ethnicity, or even your country.  You’re bigger than that.  You can help us to choose a better history.  That’s what Europe tells us.  That’s what the American experience is all about.

I say this as the President of a country that looked to Europe for the values that are written into our founding documents, and which spilled blood to ensure that those values could endure on these shores.  I also say this as the son of a Kenyan whose grandfather was a cook for the British, and as a person who once lived in Indonesia as it emerged from colonialism.  The ideals that unite us matter equally to the young people of Boston or Brussels, or Jakarta or Nairobi, or Krakow or Kyiv.

In the end, the success of our ideals comes down to us — including the example of our own lives, our own societies.  We know that there will always be intolerance.  But instead of fearing the immigrant, we can welcome him.  We can insist on policies that benefit the many, not just the few; that an age of globalization and dizzying change opens the door of opportunity to the marginalized, and not just a privileged few.  Instead of targeting our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we can use our laws to protect their rights.  Instead of defining ourselves in opposition to others, we can affirm the aspirations that we hold in common.  That’s what will make America strong.  That’s what will make Europe strong.  That’s what makes us who we are.

And just as we meet our responsibilities as individuals, we must be prepared to meet them as nations.  Because we live in a world in which our ideals are going to be challenged again and again by forces that would drag us back into conflict or corruption.  We can’t count on others to rise to meet those tests.  The policies of your government, the principles of your European Union, will make a critical difference in whether or not the international order that so many generations before you have strived to create continues to move forward, or whether it retreats.

And that’s the question we all must answer — what kind of Europe, what kind of America, what kind of world will we leave behind.  And I believe that if we hold firm to our principles, and are willing to back our beliefs with courage and resolve, then hope will ultimately overcome fear, and freedom will continue to triumph over tyranny — because that is what forever stirs in the human heart.

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)