H.E. Mr. Sergii Reva:

I will try to do my best, but if members have additional questions or my explanations are not clear, we can discuss them after this meeting.

If I am not mistaken, the first question was on the role of the EU and the possibility of a compromise. We cannot but thank the EU for its prompt reaction to the events. The EU countries and the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, were instrumental in settling the internal political situation in Kiev. For three months, there were unrest, clashes and riots in Kiev. European Ministers, the High Representative, Commissioner Štefan Füle and others visited there practically every week. They watched, gave advice and tried to help settle the situation. It was finally settled. Of course, the agreement of 21 February is not perfect, but there were riots in the street and police were shooting people. I remind the committee that almost 100 people were shot dead on the streets. I will be frank - at the time, I prayed for any agreement that could stop the violence and bloodshed. Do not be too exigent of agreements made under such pressures. I will not hide the fact that we were on the brink of civil war.

I believe the questioner meant our relationship with Russia when referring to a compromise. A compromise is possible and we always strive for compromise in our dialogue. That was our exact intention. In diplomacy, when a menace arises, the first step generally is to sit down at a negotiating table to discuss it. There are many problems to be discussed in this case. I have never stated that the situation in Crimea and other regions of Ukraine is ideal. I am not just referring to the east, but also to the west. The country is in crisis, that is the bitter reality, but we should discuss all matters at the negotiating table through dialogue, not at gunpoint.

I welcome any positive step taken by Russia in reaction to our constructive proposals to start negotiations and consultations. I will be frank - Russia does not recognise our new power. Mr. Sergey Lavrov, whom I have known personally since the 1990s or so, did not reply to calls from my Minister. The Minister did not ask him to discuss the Olympic Games or football. He wanted to discuss the threat of war in our home. The Russian side did not react to our appeals.

The Security Council's sitting and the rather firm stand taken by the EU and the US are positive movements, but the situation is fragile. Please do not believe that, after yesterday's statement by Mr. Putin, everything will go smoothly or there is peace. There is no peace. Russian troops are still trying to seize our military units. Those units have their own arms, though. A spark can explode this situation at any moment. Even as we discuss it, there may be clashes breaking out and soldiers firing. There is no guarantee. The two military forces are in place and it could happen at any time.

The first precondition necessary to start negotiations is to take a step back and withdraw troops to their permanent bases. We can then start the negotiations. We are open to having them. We have never tried to avoid or hide from negotiations on the acute questions of radical forces, secessionists, nationalists, Nazis and so on.

I did not refer to another matter in my statement because I did not want to take up too much of the committee's time. Regarding the question of why this situation came to bloodshed and riots in the streets, it was down to ex-President Yanukovych. Reverting to a part of my speech that I did not read out, what happened was due to Yanukovych's sudden reverse from the path of Ukraine's European integration last November and his unwillingness to listen to people who were on the streets for more than three months in the fog and winter when the temperature was 25 degrees below zero. People are still there. The first protests were peaceful. My son, an 18 year old student, protested because he was frustrated with the decision to postpone signing the integration agreement. What did these people receive from the President? Nothing. Quite the contrary, a peaceful gathering on the night of 30 November was dispersed brutally. People were beaten with sticks to their hands and legs. The committee should remember these facts.

The protest then became more radical. Is it good or bad? Of course, it is bad. Nobody denies that there are many radical extremist forces among the protestors. The committee saw this. They have thrown Molotov cocktails at policemen and have thrown stones. I never justified those actions and nobody could justify them but I would like the committee to understand why those radical forces appeared, became stronger and now have a voice. They were more active on the street and through their own sacrifices forced the authorities to come to the negotiating table. It is a rather complicated process. I do not have an open and unconditional answer to the Deputy's question.

Of course, there are radical forces. They are everywhere and in such difficult moments, they appear, become more active and gain some support among the population. It is always like this when a crisis takes place. It is everywhere but I would like to stress one thing. They are facts but these radical forces and ultra-nationalists have nothing to do with Crimea. There was no extremist, radical or representative of Svoboda or the right in Crimea, Donetsk, or other eastern regions. They are in the western part of the country and in Kiev. Nobody can deny this.

As far as the permission of the Government is concerned, being a diplomat, I cannot command this. When assessing this situation, I ask the committee to be impartial, unbiased and objective and to take all of the circumstances into account - what has led to such a situation. As has always happened in our history, such situations can be overcome. It will be settled. Professionals and constructive people will come to the Government. To this end, it is very important to hold presidential elections on 25 May 2014 because the Russian Federation and possibly some members of the committee still question the authority of the acting president. He is not pretending to be a president. He understands that he is acting president. He is mainly serving as speaker of the parliament. Of course, he must sign because according to the constitution, in order for a law to come into force, it should be signed by the president. Somebody must sign them. I did not hear any statement from Mr. Turchinov proving that he pretends to be a fully fledged president. I think that in two months' time, we will have a new legitimate legally elected president. I ask the committee's support once again to help in this matter.

I think all the political forces and population of Ukraine support holding elections because there is no other way out of this situation. Everybody supports it. Even people in Crimea support the idea. At least, they supported it before the Russian invasion. Even now, they support this idea. I did not hear about any opposition to the idea of holding pre-term elections. Of course, the conflict in Crimea can impede in some way the holding of these elections. I thought about this in Crimea but I hope that the situation will be settled and elections will take place.

As far as the Russian language is concerned, nobody denies their right to hold power. It was always like this in our history. Our former prime minister was Russian who did not even speak Ukrainian. I am half Russian and have never hidden the fact that I am a Russian-speaking Ukrainian. I am from Sevastopol. I did not study Ukrainian at school because there was no Ukrainian school in Sevastopol at that time. Now we are accused of undertaking so-called Ukrainianisation but think about this. For centuries, the process of Russification took place in our country. I am a vivid example of this but my children speak excellent Ukrainian. My daughter wrote poems in Ukrainian. This is natural because if a member of the committee speaks a bit of Russian, he or she can confirm that Russian and Ukrainian are very close. It is not like Irish and English. The languages are very close so it just needs a small effort to study Ukrainian. Every Russian understands at least 60% of Ukrainian without special knowledge so it is not a source of conflict. As I said in my presentation, for decades, people have been living peacefully in Crimea.

I will be frank with the committee. Yesterday, I asked my mother who is Russian and lives in Sevastopol whether she has any problems with the Ukrainian language. She told me that she did not. She told me that she always spoke Russian and did not have a word of Ukrainian but she had no problems because all people in Sevastopol and Simferapol and even most people in Kiev speak Russian. Language is not a problem. The only problem my mother has is with instructions on some medical prescriptions which are in Ukrainian. Of course, I fully agree that this is stupid. I know our health minister gave instructions long ago to make instructions available in Russian and Ukrainian. Would the committee agree that all these problems, which I believe are minor, should not justify military action? Let us not call it aggression or intervention. How can one sovereign country which calls us brothers intervene with this military force and their troops just to ensure whatever end? No radical force, fascists or extremists are there. They are in the capital and western Ukraine but they are not in Crimea and Sevastopol so this allegation is completely groundless.

The committee knows that Yulia Tymoshenko was released, which was one of the first decisions of the new configuration of the parliament. Elections took place in October 2011 as members of the committee know because they were there. The composition of the parliament has not changed. A new coalition has been formed. I draw the committee's attention to the fact that all decisions on changes to the constitution of 2004 were approved and adopted by a constitutional majority of more than 300 votes out of 450 members of the parliament. Even representatives of the party of the former regional governor and Communists voted for this so there is general consensus in the parliament and there was no question about this.

What about the constitution? Of course, it is not perfect. A member asked me about the importance of constitutional reform. Of course, it is important. Let us be frank.

No constitution is perfect and the constitutional changes in 2004 were not perfect. As the committee may know, there was a big divergence between the President and the Parliament after the so-called Orange Revolution in 2004 when the constitution was introduced. That was due to the fact that the division of power was not clear, specific or perfectly stipulated in the constitution. That is still a problem. That is why even in the Yanukovych period a special working group was created and now its work has speeded up. It has a special target to prepare and elaborate a new constitution. Nobody wants to stop it or say that the constitution was our goal and it is perfect - No. I would like to explain to the committee that coming back to the constitution was a compromise at this stage on 21 February this year when all of the riots and unrest took place on the streets. People and protestors agree that the constitution limits the power of the President but nobody imagined that he would flee. Mr. Yanukovych had a right to put forward his candidacy to be the new President but he fled. He is hiding somewhere in Russia but issues statements, holds press conferences, etc., and invited Russia to send its troops into our territory. Can the committee imagine that?

The OSCE mission is clear on presidential elections. How important is Crimea to Russia? It is very important and we realise that. Perhaps members already know the history of the region. Before 1954, Crimea was Soviet Russian Federation territory. In 1954, in honour of the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's reunification with Russia, a decision was legally adopted by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Soviet Union to make the territory Ukrainian SSR territory. When the Soviet Union collapsed and ceased to exist there was agreement that all former soviet republics remain within their borders as stated in the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Co-operation and Partnership between the Ukraine and Russia.

We realise as important the fact that there is a large Russian-speaking population in the country but it is difficult to say how many. Some Russian mass media claim that they are in the majority but that is not true. The last reliable data is the 2001 census, 13 years ago, and the situation will have changed since then. It is my assessment that the part of Russians and maybe Ukrainians also have diminished because the area is part of the Tatars who are Muslims and the birth rate is higher in that population. That is my assessment of the situation and my view does not come from official data. I think that the part of Tatars has increased. If we rely on the 2001 data, then in Crimea the population is comprised of 58% of Russians, between 24% and 25% Ukrainians and between 12% and 13% Tatars. Of course 58% is a substantial figure but it is not 90%. The Crimean population is not so homogenous as the Irish population. Perhaps the committee cannot imagine such a situation because the Irish population is comprised mostly of Irish people. In Crimea there are tens if not hundreds of nationalities. There are Tatars - and this is difficult to say in English - Armenians, Jews, Romanians, Bulgarians, etc.

As far as the rights of Crimea, last December the Vice Prime Minister of the autonomous Republic of Crimea led a visit of a high-level delegation to Ireland. The Chairman of the committee met him and spoke to him. He was also greeted by the Taoiseach and Ceann Comhairle. The delegation visited the Dáil and the Seanad and attended a plenary meeting of the Dáil. They were received as an official delegation and shown all due respect.

We understand the role of Russia and we are ready to hold open discussions with it like partners, neighbours, and peoples who share historical roots and lives and are connected economically, historically and culturally. Russian writers are our writers and the Ukrainian poet Shevchenko is well known in Russian. There is nothing to divide or split us. With such a background how can we accept actions and the introduction of force? We would understand if Russia expressed its concern and tried to initiate negotiations and express openly, as we say "in the face", all of its dissatisfaction, concerns, etc. Instead, without any negotiations and consultations, Russia introduced force.

It is no secret that the economic situation is very difficult in the Ukraine. I do not want to infer but I think that this is the direct consequence of Mr. Yanukovych's policy. The figures were well known but when he came to power our foreign indebtedness was three times less than now. It is $75 billion now, which is a huge sum for Ukraine. Of course Russian help and financial assistance would greatly assist in overcoming such debt. Russia has now adopted the position of not recognising our Government and it does not abide with previous agreement with Mr. Yanukovych. Of course we cannot insist now but yesterday I heard that Gazprom, a well known state company that supplies gas to Ukraine, said it would announce a lower price which we agreed last December. While we had an indebtedness problem before now, Russia did not like this announcement. I think its reason is quite open.

In these circumstances we need international help. Let us recall the slogan used by Mr. Yanukovych when he came to power. He said, "I promise you improvement tomorrow". Everyone can see what improvements there was. Mr. Yatsenyuk, Prime Minister of the Ukraine, speaking before his appointment said openly, "Dear Competitors, I don't promise you improvement either today or tomorrow because we are in crisis but I promise you reforms - real reform."

I very much hope that if the reform process is started we will receive a loan and stand-by credit from the IMF in addition to bilateral help.

I know the recession is not over yet, but I hope Ireland will join the common efforts of the EU member states to help the Ukraine at this very difficult time. Ireland has proved to be our friend. I will never forget that Ireland has consistently supported the process of Ukrainian integration and the Tánaiste took part in the meeting of the EU Friends of Ukraine. I appeal to the committee to help us in this very difficult moment.

I thank the Chairman and members for their time and I invite them to put specific questions.