tv Russia Security Challenges in Europe CSPAN March 16, 2018 3:47pm-5:59pm EDT
influence on literature and its impact on government, legal systems, education, and human rights with the museum's director seth pollinger. we'll also take your calls during the program. watch this weekend on the c-span networks. >> the house armed services committee earlier this week heard testimony from the top u.s. military commander in europe. he talked about russia's intervention in ukraine. disinformation campaigns from russia. and russia's alleged use of biological weapons in the united kingdom. texas congressman mac thornberry chairs the armed ervices committee. mr. thornberry: the committee will come to order. committee welcomes general scaparrottii back today to testify on the threats and posture in the european commands area of responsibility. there, he faces the full range of security challenges from russia's constant modernization of its nuclear weapons and
delivery systems to the hybrid and political warfare it wages against the u.s. and others. rep. thornberry:'s tactics extended, as we have been reminded this week, to target fascinations as well. i think it is clear the unit its tactics extend as we've been reminded this week to targeted assassinations as well. i think that it is clear that the u.s. has neglected both ends of the warfare spectrum in recent years and much in between. but the recent budget agreement and the new national defense strategy and nuclear posture review give us the chance to begin to do better. we must do better across the board. it's not enough to advocate for a more robust cyber response to russia's attempts to meddle in our elections, but waiver on our response to their renewed nuclear or territorial ambitions. likewise, we cannot build up our missile defenses and nuclear deterrent but leave significant cyber intrusions unanswered. it's essential, in my view, that we face all of these challenges with clear-eyed objectivity.
and not allow domestic politics to color our view or affect our actions. the united states and our allies and our interests are threatened by the full range of russian capability and by its increasing belligerence. our job is to address them in the military sphere in order to protect our nation's security. nothing more, and nothing less. i yield to the ranking ember. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, general scaparrotti, it's good to see you again. always appreciated your time out at joint base lewis and your leadership out there and certainly your leadership now for us in europe. and i certainly agree with the chairman, russia is the big issue, not the only, but the big issue in the european command. and how we counter their increasingly aggressive behavior. i would disagree slightly. i don't think the chairman meant it quite this way. it's not just a military challenge. obviously, we are here in the armed services committee or the ucomm commander so that's your primary focus but that is a
broader challenge and we had the opportunity to have a conversation with you yesterday a little bit about that in addition to being a military commander, you're also occasionally a diplomat in terms of being able to stay in touch with your russian counterparts to make sure there are no misunderstandings and we don't stumble into a conflict and i would also be remiss again if i didn't point out that in confronting this, diplomacy is enormously important, which means that the state department is enormously important. they are an indispensable partner for what you are trying to do and right now, the state department is not in a good place. certainly they are transitioning from one leader to the next. we're not sure how the confirmation process is going to go, but it has been a tumultuous year at the state department. that needs to get figured out, because diplomacy is going to be a big part of this. i agree with those folks, including many on this panel who have identified the fact that we have moved back into an era of great power conflict. i don't agree that that
conflict necessarily has to be military. you have to handle it in a variety of different ways in order to try to move it in a different direction. the one big thing on russia, yes, they are moving forward in terms of increasing their capabilities in a variety of areas, but the one big area where they're actually acting on a consistent basis is in their disinformation cyber campaign. and there is an area where i think we are behind and some of the other areas that the chairman mentioned, we are worried because the russians are catching up and potentially etting to the point where they can surpass us in capability, but when it comes to cyber, when it comes to disinformation campaign, we are barely on the playing field at this point. we will all, you know, read about russia's efforts to influence our election here in the u.s. they are doing it across
western europe, and it's not just elections. they are spreading a message, and that message is that authoritarian regimes are better than democracy, backing assad in syria, the things that they're doing down in libya, they are undermining the basic tenants of what we stand for, which is political freedom and economic freedom. and we have to counter that. in fact, general, you said something very interesting yesterday during our classified briefing. this wasn't classified, i don't think, but that a poll of people in western europe asking them how important democracy was, a poll of the younger generation, it was shocking to see that it wasn't a very high percentage that said it was important. the basic notion that political freedom is the way to govern a ountry and to govern the world is being eroded. now, there's a lot of reasons for that, but i would submit that one of the biggest ones is a concentrated campaign by vladimir putin to undermine it. we need to counter that. so i'm very interested to hear today what we're doing on that information campaign and obviously as the chairman mentioned, there are military challenges as well but i'll
just close by saying i think the idea ideal outcome here is that we figure out a way to work with russia. i will oddly agree with the president, at least in that sentence, not necessarily in the way he's chosen to go about doing it, but the world is a better place if the great powers of the world, the united states, russia, china, the european union, get along and confront global challenges. you know, whether it's terrorism, global warming, if we work together to confront the things that challenge us all, we're better off than if we get involved in conflicts with one another, and i'm still optimistic that there are paths to get to that place. so, i look forward to your testimony. i thank you for your leadership and thank you for being here. i yield back. mr. thornberry: again, we welcome back general scaparrotti, commander u.s. european command and supreme allied commander of nato. general, without objection, your full written statement will be made part of the record and you're recognized now for any oral comments you'd like to ive.
general scaparrottii: chairman thornberry, ranking member smith, distinguished members of the house armed services committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you as the commander of the united states european command. it's an honor to represent more than 60,000 men and women. supporting the u.s. mission in europe. our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coast guardsmen and civilian workforce continue to demonstrate selfless service and dedication in an increasing complex and competitive security environment. our adaptation to this environment is made significant process thanks to resourcing provided by congress, particularly under the european deterrence initiative. ucom deeply appreciates congress' support, which has supported the largest reinforcement of the euro-atlantic defense in a generation.
the u.s. has been joined by the nato alliance, the nato alliance are remains critical to our national security and the rules based international order. every challenge we face as a nation is best addressed with our allies and i'm proud to report that nato alliance is strong, it is united, and it's committed to being fit for purpose. our european allies in canada have turned a corner on defense spending, with increases in each of the past three years. during this time, they've added $46 billion to our collective defense, including a $5 billion increase from 2016 to 2017. in 2018, eight countries will meet nato's 2% spending target and by 2024, at least 15 nations are on pace to reach or exceed the 2% mark. as these commitments demonstrate, nato is adapting to ensure it is vigilant in peace, responsive in crisis. and possesses large-scale multidomain conflict. together with nato, the u.s. has made significant progress, but we have much work to do as we execute our national defense strategy, fielding an increasingly lethalal, agile,
-- lethal, agile and resilient joint force in long-term strategic competition with russia and ready to counterviolent extremist organizations. russia's carrying out a campaign of destabilization to change the international order, fracture nato, and undermine u.s. leadership around the world. at sea, on land, and in the air, russia's increasingly modernized military is operating at levels not seen since the cold war. at the same time, russia is using indirect activities to advance its strategic objectives. throughout europe, along its periphery, in the middle east and beyond, russia has demonstrated a willingness and capability to use political provocation, spread disinformation, and to undermine democratic institutions. in response to the challenge posed by russia's pursuit of power, u.s. has increased its posture in europe to include an armored brigade combat team and a combat aviation brigade.
additionally, we've implemented the framework battalion task force. for nato's forward enhancement in poland. we've prepositioned equipment for additional abct. we've doubled our maritime deployments to the black sea. we've exercised theater anti-submarine warfare operations, executed bomber assurance and deterrence missions in europe and for the first time we've deployed fifth generation fighters to europe. the u.s. has taken these acts in coordination with nato since the 2016 warsaw summit, nato has made significant gains in meeting its security commitments. nato has implemented its enhanced forward presence with four multinational battle groups backed by 29 nations. it has also established a tailored forward presence in the black sea region. additionally, the u.s. and nato are putting a spotlight on russian meddling and interference, countering russian misinformation with truthful and transparent information and reinforcing our
winning narrative of sovereignty, freedom, the dignity of the individual, and the rule of law. the second major threat we face throughout the european area of operations is violent extremist terrorist groups. since 2014, europe has endured 18 major terrorist attacks. while the defeat isis coalition, which includes nato now, recovers territory that was seized in iraq and syria, isis remains active and seeks to expand its operations across europe. eucom provides forces for military operations against isis such as operation inherent resolve and has increased information and intelligence sharing among u.s. agencies, international partners and the private sector. with the e.u. and nato, eucom supports a trinodal community of action. to identify and counter terror threats. also, eucom has increased coordination to thwart terrorist activities. our european allies fight alongside us, deploying forces worldwide to support u.s. -led counterterrorism
operations, including o.i.r. and operation freedom sentinel and to conduct national counterterrorism missions. the allies remain committed to defeating violent extremists and their support is essential to our ongoing counterterrorism efforts. thanks to the resources provided by congress, particularly through european deterrence initiative, ucom has -- eucom has made significant headway in establishing a defensive posture that is credible, capable, and relevant to our strategic objectives. s our national defense states -- as our national defense strategy states, a strong and free europe bound by shared principles of democracy, national sovereignty and commitment to article 5 of nato's washington treaty is vital to our security. service members at eucom are making this a reality. we stand ready to protect the homeland, strengthen our europe e and ensures that remains whole.
mr. chairman, thank you and i look forward to the questions. mr. thornberry: thank you, general. i want to ask a question about this chemical weapon assassination attempt in britain. . this morning in the "washington post," the british foreign secretary writes that it is part of a pattern of reckless behavior. the common thread that joins the poisonings with the and exation in crime yeah and russian interference in foreign elections is the kremlin's reckless defiance of a central international rules. my question is do you agree with that statement that this is a pattern of behavior that has in common the reckless defiance or the attempt to undermine
international rules? do you agree with that and do our nato allies agree with that? general scaparrotti: i agree it epresents russia's disregard for rules and norms. this specific incident with the nerve agent, nato has stick -- set up a standby their allies in the u.k.. we believe it is highly likely that russia was complicit in this attack. that was a statement they made. we also believe it is highly likely they are complicit with the chemical weapons use. we stand by our allies, and we support their efforts to fully determine who the responsible parties were and hold them accountable.
rep. thornberry: whether it is this incident or cyber attacks, or the posting about nuclear weapons, it is critical for the alliance to stand together and push back this whole range of activity. that is the only way for us to counter it. i am going to yield to the anking member. >> i think the chairman is right. part of this is holding russia accountable. they have all kinds of internal problems and economic weakness. even their military is still nowhere near a match for urs. but they will push as far as they can if they think there is not a cost to it. one specific question about that.
the ministration has delayed implementation of sanctions against russia. the loose justification was that they were waiting for the election of putin, like he might lose or something. doesn't it make sense at this point to be as aggressive as possible in implementing the same prints -- sanctions that congress has made available, in much the same way we are doing with iran and north korea? curtis m. scaparotti: i can't omment on the speed of the sanctions. as you said earlier, we have to adjust their activity with a whole government response, and sanctions are the appropriate art of that. adam smith: this is something we haven't talked about yet. turkey is perhaps the largest issue, and the whole issue of trying to make sure we keep nato together.
but a conflict between turkey and the kurds, they were indispensable in terms of what we did in terms of syria and iraq in terms of dealing with isis. what are some ways in which we might get to a better place between our allies, turkey and the kurds? general scaparrotti: i work closely with them to continue our close relationship and restore the relationship to an extent because of the differences here with respect to the y.p.g. and their alliance with us in our dee-isis campaign. as you know, the state department is working closely with them and we have been involved in this and we are presently working on a way to
attempt to meet their legitimate concerns, their security concerns along the border. the terrorists attacks that they have inherent to their country and has for some time and complete the dee-isis campaign which has presented a direct threat to our country as well. depth.r not to go more mr. smith: i understand there are legitimate concerns on both sides and the kurds wanted a degree of independence and at the same time you could on hardly blame turkey that they have terrorist attacks in their country. i have an editorial comment about russia. i think we need an administration that sends a much clearer signal. the president's reluctance and
instance after instance and even that the chairman just raised, while are a number of other government first, i forgot if it was the secretary of state or the c.i.a. director who said there is no question that russia committed the attack that happened in england against the spice. our own president was like, could have been, don't know, sort of the same thing he said about the interference about the elections that russia has done. the longer the leader of our country gives russia a pass and , theg maybe they are doing tougher your job to hold them accountable. i don't know and wouldn't begin to guess, the president needs to speak clearly and forcefully against these russian actions and stop acting like they didn't happen. it undermines what russia is doing.
and with that, i yield back. mr. thornberry: mr. wilson is recognized for five minutes. mr. wilson: general, thank you for your successful service. your mission is critical with little room for error. one of my concerns to defend its area of responsibility is to support troops and equipment across europe. infrastructure and inconsistent border crossings has delays disrupts our freedom of movement while training and exercising in the theater. could you describe what role the u.s. is leading the effort to resolve these issues and what other organizations, nato, e.u. are doing to address the challenge? general scaparrotti: mobility, as i will call it broadly within the euro-atlantic theaters is important to our defense capabilities and it was not
invested in through the years that the past decade or more that we believed that russia was a partner. i think we have turned acorner in that this past year and have focus and energy among our european partners as you said to get a focus on improving our infrastructure, our rail and road, our ports and our capability to handle the movement of military forces throughout europe. we have done that in ucomm through the work of our logistics' capacity in an assessment early of our ability to move and the infrastructure that supports it. we've worked closely with both nato and the j-4 and nato headquarters and my headquarters as well as with the e.u. nato and e.u. is one of their
cooperative efforts is in fact, mobility. that's important, because it brings to bear the other elements of national power outside of the military that the e.u. can bring in economic, diplomatic, et cetera. i think we have a good start and have a broad alliance of nations that are looking at this now. mr. wilson: grateful to be with you in munich and brussels where i saw the high regard of our allies to address this issue. in december, 2017, the president courageously changed the u.s. policy to provide assistance to ukraine and they have approved the sale of javelins. as putin has illegally invaded and occupied crime yeah and the eastern portion of ukraine. high hopes for a prosperous russia have been crushed by
putin. what is your assessment of the fight on the ground in ukraine? how do you assess russia's long-term strategy in ukraine and has it changed since the new policy? general scaparrotti: ukraine is what i would consider a hot fight right now. it's not a frozen conflict. daily, there is activity along the front and unfortunately for ukraine, the loss of life every week. and i fully support what we're doing to help their capability to defend their security and institutions which they are working closely. the assets that we provided funded by congress to support them and support their development has provided them with defensive capabilities and with the javelin that you specifically noted and those assets go directly to their
improved capability to establish the defense in the east and become more and more competent and confident of their ability to secure their nation. what i have seen in russia is russia has continued to support what i call a proxy force to include providing regular military commanders in charge at company and above level of the separateists or the proxy forces on the other side. i think it's too early to say whether a change is a direct result of the changes we are taking. i'll close by saying, it's not russia wants to resolve this conflict at this point. they certainly could do much to move the long
minsk agreement and allow overseeing of the mission, which they are not doing. they are attempting to just freeze this a bit to their advantage. mr. wilson: thank you for your leadership and the persons serving with you, god bless you. >> thank you, general for your service and testimony here today. i appreciate the opportunity to ask questions in a classified setting yesterday. i recently turned from a codel in europe with representative stefanik and saw how the partners are working with your command to deter and counter the threat of and actual russian aggression. a critical component is forward
deployment of our troops and equipment in the region and your written testimony and at the senate hearing last week, you highlighted the increased presence which includes pre-positioning of equipment and orward presence and combat aviation brigade. my question, given russia's high tempo of exercises and troop placement on its borders, i would like to hear more about your thoughts on our forward force deployment. is a heel-to-toe the proper force posture for our forward deployed units or one or two year rotation be better or what bout better presence of units? general scaparrotti: i appreciate your visit to those nations. they are strong allies and one
of the smaller nations but they are strong and active. first of all, i would say that i think our rotational period of about nine months is the right one. we have had experience in our forces and particularly in the army of rotating for a year or a year and additional three months or less and we found that nine months is about right for a number of reasons. and so i would -- in terms of rotation, i would stay with nine months. with the rotational force, i get someone specifically trained for that mission and ready to come in, i think our return of force that is just as well trained when it returns to the states. we at least maintain the readiness if not build readiness through that experience. in terms of rotational versus permanent, i do believe we need more forces in europe. i don't think we are at the posture that i believe is
appropriate or required yet. and because of that, i think there are some permanent forces i would like to have. i would like to have our enabling elements as a permanent force and continue the rotation until we reach a point where we might consider that as well. last thing i will say is that there is a requirement and the service determines how best to fill that and some of these again are best provided in the permanent fashion. >> would you include an aviation brigade as one of those permanent forces? >> i would. >> can you discuss the logistics and challenges that face our troops such as freedom of movement and what steps are you taking under your command to address them. general scaparrotti: as i said, we have done an assessment and
we started it in terms of the infrastructure status across europe and what was required. with that, we are now working with the nations involved so they understand their responsibilities as well as an ally or as a partner. and there are examples throughout your of taking this on in ports, infrastructure, roads, changing rail. in nato, at 29, they agreed to begin working the diplomatic and customs rules that allow the military to move expeditiously with less than five days notice. those are steps that are significant and making forward progress. we have already through congress to support the e.d.i., along with our partners, are investing in critical infrastructure, ports, things of that nature
that we identified we need to improve in order to help with our mobility. and in all those cases, our ally in that invests more than we do. it's in their country. i think we are making good progress and we have good examples of that, but there is a lot of work to do. >> red, yellow or green? >> i'd say yellow. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. mr. thornberry: mr. turner. mr. turner: good to see you again. i want to echo joe wilson's comments having been with you in munich and your presentation at the parliamentary assembly. i think in both of those, we were very proud of both of your representation of the united states and also to our allies. you have continued to make clear the threat that russia poses in all of your presentations
including their meddling in elections, meddling in democracies, a threat that is pose dollars to you and your ability to execute your job and task and even the forward deployed troops, what they're experiencing. on the mobility issue, i would like to expand on the questions that have been asked. you have done a great job in informing congress. we did not undertake plans for how would we defend the space and make sure the infrastructure was there. people would be surprised when we approved the initiative, there were u.s. funds that were necessary in order to be able to get our troops from point a top point b that went to infrastructure. you mentioned that briefly we were working with our partners. could you give us an example of the types of things you had to fund that you shouldn't be funding and need to work with our allies to make sure the
infrastructure supports so you don't have to in the future. general scaparrotti: m.k. which is a base in romania, we are weighing concrete pad off the runway and investing in the infrastructure that helps with the movement and mobility of troops through that port and what they're doing is they agreed as we improve that tarmac, improve their reception.off the runway, they agreed to include a fuel line and improve the rail line to make this a good hub for movement of troops and equipment.
different ports and moving by different means. and in doing that we learned where we have issues. we develop that capability in those countries and their civilian infrastructure that supports that and build muscle memory. so that's been an important part of this over the past year as well. mr. turner: shortly after seeing you, i went to -- i was in germany and the guard just left estonia and they reported there was a number of their missions they were unable to accomplish
because of some of the issues that you just described. and the questions that they had was how you is that captured, how can we be assured that as we do the forward deployment of troops and run into these impediments that it is captured and worked and resolved so we have that future capability? general scaparrotti: we capture that after review and all of those exercises. and operations out of certain places capture the issues we have and bring it back up to nato j-4 and the countries involved to capture that. it's exactly how we do. we have example of movement of troops for exercises where they were stopped at a border, put on a side track for like two, three
days and had to work through customs. d we had this along side our border. but those things occur. we drill back down into it, whether it's a customs' issue, coordination issue or infrastructure issue. mr. thornberry: mr. courtney. mr. courtney: thank you for your testimony, yesterday and today. the office of naval intelligence issued a report in 2015 called the russian navy historic transition and a public document and states here that submarines are the capital ships of the russian navy. this is dictated by russia's navy. major ocean areas make surface ship operations vulnerable to potential enemy action. this enhances their survisket or transiting into open sea areas
fleet is theat the operation. one of your predecessors testified here a couple of years ago and kind of caught people's attention by stating that the submarine activity is roughly 70% of what it was during the cold war era. and he was there during a lot of that. and you mention in your opening remarks about the fact that empty submarine activities is a restart in terms of our forces as well as the region. i realize some of this is classified and you talked about it yesterday, but i think it's important to create some picture in terms of what your's dealing with and what you are seeing and comment a little more. general scaparrotti: the admiral gave an estimate of what it was
in. since the last time i testified here, we have seen activity in the russian navy particularly undersea and their submarine activity that we haven't seen since the 1980's. the level of activity is up yet again and as you know, they are producing maritime enhancements to existing ships and new submarines that is definitely more modern and more challenging. while we remain dominant undersea, we have to continue our investment as the navy has weighed out to maintain that dominance given their increased activity with their forces. mr. courtney: working with some of our allies in the region, this is something that is sort of a restart. general scaparrotti: yes, sir. it's important.
most of the allies in the united states doesn't have the same capacity that it had during the cold war when we were used to doing it together given maritime operations. we are all rebuilding our capacities to meet the challenges we have in this new environment and russia's modernization. together, we can handle this. we have proven that this past year, but it does take all of us working together. it takes a mix of the forces and warfare, it's a mix that allows us with our capabilities to be successful. mr. courtney: last year we included language that allowed wounded ukranian soldiers to be treated in our facilities. that was signed a couple of
months ago. do you have any comment of how that was received by our friends in the ukraine and whether or not you see that as a process that's actually going to happen. general scaparrotti: i'm sure it was received very well. it is a deliberate demonstration of our support for them and our close partnership to care for one of their wounded. and so without a doubt -- i know the chief of defense truly cares about his forces and their care as well as their training so they can fight and protect that country. >> general, thanks so much for your service. concern is we are at an
untenable position with russia and i want to get clarification of article 5 because they developed a hybrid system or sort of a i guess you would call hybrid tactics that involve information operations mr. coffman: element of psychological warfare as well as using cowvert forces as proxy. and so when we look at something like the battleic states that have russian minorities in them much like the ukraine, they could do the same pattern there. and i'm concerned would -- that nato would ack wees to that because they might not consider an actual attack under article 5. what is your interpretation 4
aware of this and working on that. mr. coffman: you said that is the most difficult scenario, don't you think that is the most probable scenario? and one of the objectives with ussia clearly is to break nato in the battleic states. general scaparrotti: trying to undermine and splinter nato. i'm confident of nato. i have seen the discussions. and i think in something that an attack.is i have seen them come together in things less than this that was perhaps divisive at the time that they could reach a
conclusion. mr. coffman: let me express to you that i don't share the confidence in our allies because of the -- there was an aagreed on 2% growth of g.d.p. to be spent on defense. d the majority of our allies no where near that 2%. they have other priorities within their budget. but that's a real concern whether or not doing that and there is an overreliance on the united states. could you comment on that. general scaparrotti: i share your concern and i press that as well as the secretary general commander. as i stated, there will be eight that made that 2% and 15 that will plan to make it and we will continue to press that and as part of the alliance that you
are contributing both in cash, contributions and capability. i agree with need to press that. if you look at nato and say since wausau and since the adaps -- warsaw. it is a competitive nation. all of those things that i noted about the forward posture of troops, our policing activity are much more increased particularly in the black sea and the battlics, everything i did was at 29. that's why i have confidence in nato. these are tough decisions for them and within their countries and have been able to act over the past year. mr. veasey: i wanted to talk to
you about russia and the balkans. i know there have been several things they wanted to make in the balkans that didn't quite work out the way they anticipated. there have been some credit issues and some other foreign trade things that didn't go the russians' way, but it's clear they want to have influence there. in your opinion, how far are they willing to go to make sure they can continue to have a certain amount of influence in that region even though some of the things they are working on economically, haven't borne any fruit? general scaparrotti: what i see are offers of military equipment and military assistance and sometimes the equipment is surely below the cost to them. but as you watch them work in europe in countries that they'll
work with, they offer that equipment at a low cost to ensure they will take it and bring in troops and decide that the troops need to stay. as a matter of influence and some leverage, i would say over time. those are the things i see on the military side. beyond that, very common disinformation, campaigns in the ations within the balkans. stiring political debate, support for fringe political parties in order to stir that debate and consistent message hat is anti-west, anti-nato, anti--u.s. mr. veasey: if their demographic crisis real and they are losing population and these investments that they are offering the people aren't going through --
again, they are not yielding anything, how long can they continue to keep up that sort of disinformation and continue to be a powerful player there if they are suffering in all these areas economically? general scaparrotti: there aresome that look at their demographics, they look at their economy, health issues, et cetera and would say while they are in a great power competition as you look long range, they just can't sustain this. and my view would be that the russian people are used to adversity and their culture embraces that and even with a difficult economy, president putin has been able to reverse the trend and approaching 2% growth. they have great resilience and that's not what we should count
on but count on ensuring we are strong and deter their activities. mr. veasey: how do you think we should try to influence the countries there in the balkans? general scaparrotti: we need a whole government approach. diplomatic engagement there and encouragement from our allies there. we need to work with them to build western democratic institutions. there's clearly a desire among the population in the balkans to come west. but we have to show them we are just as interested in that as they are. mr. veasey: i yield back. mr. thornberry: mr. scott. mr. scott: nice to see you again. i want to follow up on the line of questions that my colleague that mr. veasey was asking.
russia is a huge country, land mass. largest country my understanding, on the earth. they border depending how you ount them, over 12 countries including north korea and china on the eastern side. but then when you come back to the part of the world that you are in charge of, they border a number of countries in the european theater. my question to you is, are they engaging in malign activities against all of them, and if not, which countries are they not engaging in these activities against? general scaparrotti: i think, i probably have seen some activity in most countries. and those that they don't have a certain focus on, you still see that activity in their media, because their media is waste
with an anti-western, anti-international order kind of message, undercutting democratic countries, undercutting governments that they're in and that's kind of where they are like and focus more particularly in the east, the countries that were once a part of the soviet union. they see that as their strategic space and think they should have influence in those nations and it's much heavier there. but even in the other countries in europe, if you go to italy, france, germany, et cetera, there are examples of saying use of this information, social media and those kinds of activities as well. mr. scott: i have only been there a few weeks but the perception i had is that they are engaged in all of those and basically, they are going to start chaos and when they see a
weakness, they would take advantage of it. and you answered this question earlier when mr. veasey asked it, but the question is, how long can they sustain that against all of the countries? and how long do all of the countries go without at some point taking an action against russia to actually stop this? general scaparrotti: i can't answer how long they can go. i would say they are a resilient nature and a culture. we have to take action to establish a deterrent effect and that is to respond to demonstrate capability and use the will if necessary. mr. scott: i worry and i am making this as a statement, turkey being on their border, i worry about them using their in vities to the disservice
turkey, potentially a coupe there or somebody friendly to them -- even if they took over a day or two with our assets in that country, the potential damage that they could do by seizing some of our assets. are you comfortable that that relationship with turkey is strong enough and we have enough insight that if that began to happen, we would have the ability to protect our assets in that country? general scaparrotti: i'm comfortable with that. i speak to their chief of defense often and our staffs have interchange and have been responsive to us in terms of force protection as well. any concern about a threat to our forces that are stationed there, they will take immediate action. in terms of their demonstration
and the relationship we have, i'm confident of that and the protection of our force there. if i could follow up on the other one, we had to demonstrate and demonstrate that we as the alliance and our partners because our strength versus russia is the fact that we have such a great alliance and such great partners. that's important and they ecognize that.
general scaparrotti: but not enough to make a huge difference. in other words, it will draw it out to two to five years. but i think they know what they want to establish, the capabilities they need and they have been focused on that over a number of years. i think you may see it drawn out but won't stop in terms of what they believe they need as a part f their military capabilities. mr. scott: i'm quoting him, president putin has come to the conclusion there is little price to pay. mr. o'rourke: clearly, what we have done is not enough in
regards to what action we have aken to deter russian election meddling and extend it to syria, crime yeah, ukraine and involvement in the 2018 elections and involvement in the 2020 elections. you said to the senate armed services committee last week, i don't believe there is an effective unification across the inner agency that we could attain. how can you assure us that we are going to achieve that and to follow up on the ranking member's question that there is a price to pay for russia that will deter this kind of activity going forward? general scaparrotti: within the department of defense and as far as i'm concerned, we are working closely within the interagency o develop both the structure and enhance the energy i talked about. i think that's the issue.
we've got to -- we have a lot of capacity and a lot of talent. that was directly from a question about the level of activity below the conflict. our capacity in cyber, our ability in diplomacy and truthful media, we have great capacity. we have to focus that capacity as a whole of government so there is a response. we have seen instances where we developed the structure and volume at specific times within the media to influence their disinformation, to influence their actions as a result. this can be done. we have to pull this together and get after it. mr. o'rourke: i am convinced of your intent and the will and the dedication and the excellence of those who serve under you.
i'm not convinced of the strategy at this point. i wouldn't expect you to tell me everything is ok, because it is not. you have said -- you said, we are getting a better understanding and i wouldn't characterize it as a good picture, not satisfactory to me. you talked about russian activity related to the united states and you said i'll leaf -- leave it at that. not to be assured that it's ok but some assurance in a strategy we can understand and articulate and commitment to this threat articulated by the president on down and i'm not seeing it. i'm getting asked those questions. that's why i'm asking of them to you today and go back to them and have an understanding. it does not look like if we just connect the dots from russia's activity from georgia to today, that anything we have done has
deterred them. convince me to the contrary? general scaparrotti: broadly, they have not been deterred. they continue to take activity, global level of conflict. mr. o'rourke: anything you are planning to do now that will deter them. general scaparrotti: we are taking actions in specific areas. we have the capacity to do this. we are taking all kinds of activities and the whole government as well. we have a deterrent effect in the east, no doubt about it and it's not just the military component that does that. we have a deterrent effect convention neal within information cycle. it's a new domain and it's a omain today that is connected. it's fast and isn't easy and it's new.
and one of the toughest areas to deter and act. mr. o'rourke: thank you for your answers and service. mr. thornberry: mr. burn. burn burn thank you for your service. all of us have watched what happened in eastern ukraine over 10,000 people are dead and we are now beginning to give them the help they have been asking for for some time. mr. byrne: ukraine is not a member of nato. i'm thinking those who are members of nato and as members of nato, we owe them a substantial obligation if somebody does something to them. so two questions, do you think something like what has happened in eastern ukraine could happen in the battleics and what would
it look like to honor our obligations to those countries? general scaparrotti: i don't want to be specific. we have an agreement with members of nato article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all. we would honor that. we would come to their assistance. i think russia is deterred from taking an action like trying to seize a portion of one of the countries on the border because they know nato is 29 nations and much stronger and we would win that conflict. they don't want a conflict in that regard. i don't believe they would take that step. mr. byrne: i would hope they would not as well. but hoping is not a plan as you know. i assume if you could tell us about the details, i assume
there is a plan if they tried to do something. general scaparrotti: there is a plan. general scaparrotti: is congress providing you with the authorization and resources you need to implement that plan? general scaparrotti: when i talk about the budget, i'm looking at the outyears. since i have been in this job, this is the first time in the budget that i have said here in my requirements and being addressed through the fidep. but it will take us those years to really put us in a posture that i believe we should be in and best in to assure deterrence of russia and any idea they might have to take an act to ensure that we deter any thoughts or opportunities they might have. mr. byrne: i want to make sure -- i believe with all my heart
you are doing what you are supposed to be doing but sometimes you have to tell us what we need to do to provide you with the authorization and resources to do what you need to do and i hope you won't be rett sent. as you probably know, we had quite an effort to get the level of spending up for the department of defense for both this fiscal year and next fiscal year. that didn't come by happenstance. we need the information and the push sometimes from you and people that are working with you so we get what we need to get done in congress. general scaparrotti: i understand this has not been easy. my message to you, you'll know clearly what my assessments are. and in a classified hearing, i
will tell you what my requirements are and to the extent you can see where they are being addressed and how quickly being addressed. i will be very clear and i appreciate congress and the committees' diligence in this. mr. byrne: everybody on the committee appreciates your directness with us. sometimes the more direct your the more likely we are to be responsive and i want to encourage you. i think you do have a plan. but i always worry that you have a great plan. tell us what you need and this committee is willing to work with you. i yield back. mr. thornberry: mr. gallego. mr. gallego: one of the things i have been advocating for is moving the e.d.i. from being based on the funds to the base
budget. if you want to talk about a commitment and show of force to russia, that we are committed to europe, that would be the route to do it and also to assure our nato allies that we are with them in the fight. what would change from your perspective in terms of planning if we moved e.d.i. out of o.c.u. and into the base budget? general scaparrotti: first of all, i would support going to a base budget out of o.c.u. what would change in that, it would be under the services to then prioritize and fund and deliver the assets within their service. and that's my one concern is that the way we develop e.d.i. today between the department, is that we lay out the priorities
from a commander's perspective and that is a bit different. because i'm looking at the combination of all the services and resources to get the best benefit in terms of deterrence and defense. so as we move to the budget, i would like some means within the planning to protect that prioritization by the combatant commander. mr. gallego: in terms of the message it would send to our allies if we actually went that route, in your opinion. general scaparrotti: i think the message would be that we're committed to funding our needs and particularly those needs that have to deal with euro-atlantic and we have partners in europe. but the key would be that they see what is inherent in our alliance capabilities.
mr. gallego: what we recently just saw occur in england, in my opinion, russia will never present a clear violation of nato's article 5 but it is like the teenager and testing below actually crossing the line. what are we doing with the nato members like finland and sweden. their capabilities of their domestic exathes and prevent russian -- that the pre--russian incursion that are around hybrid warfare. and the innoculation we should be doing to stop russia to encourage or influence our allies.
general scaparrotti: there are a number of activities ongoing right now that are u.s. to partners and u.s. within the alliance. i would first point out that we've noted that cyber is a domain and we are working as a main and we have established cyber centers and beginning to take -- conduct activities in that regard and that touches all 29 nations and touches the partners of nato which are about 40. within nato we have a cyber center of excellence among different nations. the also to help assess environment and determine best responses and educate the other nation' capabilities in this and help them in aapplying it and in
nato, to help us do this in a pattern. while there is much work to do, there is a lot of good work going on in each of these areas that shares information, shares best practices, shares information that we are fully aware of what's going on in our environment. and i'm positive about this. but there's a lot of work that eeds to be done. mr. thornberry: mr. lamborn. mr. lamborn: i was in another committee, so excuse me if you already addressed this question. i would like to ask you about iran. as north korea continues to expand its ballistic missile and nuclear capabilities, it has also been testing newly developed systems, which i think is a real problem. while the u.s. is arguably shifted focus in the last two to
five years to address the threats from north korea, how is assess a threat and protect our deployed forces? general scaparrotti: our capabilities are good. our defense system, particularly our air and missile defense system is the focus as well. we do watch pe closely iranian activity and their maligned influence as israel is a part of ucomm and they consider iran as a threat to them. i support the defense of israel. so we work closely with israel and keep a very close eye on iran's capabilities and activities in close coordination with centcom. mr. lamborn: as kind of a follow-on, we have sites in
romania and poland, what are we doing to protect them from cruise missiles or other kinds of attacks? general scaparrotti: that is address among the layered defensive system and steps we are taking in that regard and i would prefer to give you that response more fully in a classified document, if i could. mr. lamborn: that would certainly work. and lastly, on asian modernizations, give us an update on the russian military modernization programs. and general -- president putin talked about this kind of far-fetched nuclear-pipped important speed oost and cruise missiles, things like that. but what are they doing that you are concerned about? general scaparrotti: well, they are modernizing their force.
let's go to the conventional and nuclear force and generally, i can talk to you and provide you more in-depth response in a classified document, but it's well known they are modernizing their conventional force and doing that with the weapons systems they put on them as well as the missiles that they developed to give them greater range and greater precision and most of these systems that they employ, they can be either conventional or nuclear. so in many ways, they are improving the ships they have in the maritime. i improving the planes they have, their bombers. and their submarines with advanced systems that we need to pace and be able to deal with. they are improving their nuclear capability across all their systems and modernizing those.
that's why m.p.r. is important for us to maintain our nuclear deterrent across the range of scenarios that they might present. and last thing i would note is, they are -- last thing i would note they are working hard to modernize both their sea force systems, you know, their command and control last thing i would note they are working hard to modernize both their sea force systems, you know, their command and control hypersonics as well. l doug lamborn: when it comes to the nuclear posture review, i believe it is a good thing that we propose that we have more options like low yield weapons or c-launched intermediate -launchedsea
intermediate cruise missiles. some people think that we should have fewer options just as a philosophical matter. where do you come on the number of openings we should or shouldn't have? curtis m. scaparotti: i support the nuclear posture review that we should close any gaps. have a deterrent that can respond across spectrum of scenarios they would present us or an adversary would present us. i think this designs a tailorable force that does just that and doesn't lower the threshold. actually, by those gaps and ensuring they under that we have -- they understand that we have a deterrent and capable posture, it raises the threshold, in my view. >> thank you so much. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> general, good morning, thank you for being here. thank you for your testimony. as you can tell by most of the questioning, hyper warfare is a -- hybrid warfare is a concern as to what is owing on, obviously, with russia and what they are doing. article vook at though, and i just looked it up to be frank, you know, is says
"armed attack." it goes through that. in your opinion, do you think article v needs to be updated in order to deal with this cyber -- this hybrid warfare, so that there can be a joint response? curtis m. scaparotti: well, you know, i'm not going to try to get in, that's that north atlantic council's job there. but i talked to them. i think they are actually working on the structures and the definitions that inform that treaty. i'm confident that they are wrestling with the hard question that you're talking about. whether or not it's a change literally to the wording of article v or whether it's the, you know, the process and the understandings they develop of that, i will let them be the determinant of that. >> does it eliminate you now in this current case? curtis m. scaparotti: no, i don't think that. there's an understanding of the basis, the spirit of article v and an understanding that the character of warfare is changing.
>> fair enough. great. thank you. pivoting, moving up north, in regards to the arctic, can you speak to the russian build up, up there and our response? curtis m. scaparotti: clearly they are modernizing some of their older bases and their building some new ones. they are placing radar systems, et cetera in place and they have moved air defense systems back and forth as a part of their exercises as well. they are developing capabilities in terms of ships capable to operate. in a numbers that will outpace us if we are not diligent here. in the in-state in several years they would be in position given , given their modernization, if they chose to, to control the northern sea route. they state their intent is for safety, security, economy,
rescue of those at sea, et cetera, but i think we have to pay attention to what we're seeing there. >> and we are paying attention, clearly. curtis m. scaparotti: we are. but we also need to look with our allies and across our government, at what assets and capabilities we should have in place, given their modernization. >> and beyond looking are we actually doing something? curtis m. scaparotti: we're. >> ok. thank you. i yield back. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. great to see you again. you stated recently that you do not believe that the u.s. has an effective and unified approach to dealing with russia's cyber threat, specifically " i don't believe there's an effective unification
across the interagency with energy and focus we can attain. ." what are we doing to address this and what specifically do we need to do? >> well, i'll speak from my point of view. what we're doing is we're work with the russian information group, which is the rig commonly called. n inter-agency board. i cochair it with the undersecretary of eight. that gives us a platform to bring together the interagency in a whole government approach and activity for warfare. it is under state, which is the global engagement center. i think at least in my view the central point now within the government state of being responsible for, particularly information and counter disinformation. so that's what we're doing. and it has been receiving additional funding and guidance. my point that you quoted is -- i
think we have the structure that we can expand on, but we just don't have the focus or the energy, that i think we are capable of, or we should put into this, in order to deter this disinformation campaign that's going on. >> so i agree with you. but i want to hear specifically , what steps we need to take to ensure that we have the focus and the energy. i have concerns with the lack of implementation of the appropriations when it comes to it, but i want to hear from you specifically what steps we need to take, so i year from now, the answer to this question is not the name. curtis m. scaparotti: ok. i'm going to give you my response. i'm not in state. this is really a question that, you know, frankly i will admit here publicly that this is their business. but from someone that takes part in this, as a part of dod, you know, i personally believe that, you know, greater clarity in role, greater direction across the interagency with respect to
how this will work as a, you no, as the central agency for information and perhaps resources, in order to develop the energy and focus that i talked about. i prefer not to go beyond that. again, this is really a question for state. but i think from my point of view and working with them. , they are good people. they are making good head way. but we could do more. >> you and i have discussed and it would be worthy for the committee to hear your sees assessment. are we seeing new trends in the context of this question comes from we're heading in to the midterm elections. are we seeing new trends when it comes to russia's use of disinformation among our allies. obviously, we saw that, leading up to the french elections and german elections. i think both countries were pretty capable in terms of how they ensured that this disinformation campaign from russia didn't meddle with their electoral process. what can we learn from that? what trends do we need to look for as we head to the mid-terms?
curtis m. scaparotti: i think the one that is apparent in use is social media and using factories in order to get out a lot of volume with disruptive messaging. that was seen here. it was seen in europe in the elections there as well. but, that is one of the trends that has been identified. there are other nations, as we have progressed, some of the elections in europe, they were able to handle the cause of the information that came out. they've learned how to begin to counter that. how to be prepared to counter that, et cetera. so, there is progress being made. but that's one of those that i would note. i think as an alliance, we've assisted with their elections, et cetera and they've exchanged information as well from what they've learned, and my general view is that we've been better able at least on europe to deal with this as this has progressed. >> and my last question if i have time is, who from your
riskective has the central one's ability when it comes to counter propaganda, whether it's from russia or frankly other adversaries? >> my understanding it's state. >> are there countries specific strategies that are being developed that work effectively with dod counterparts? curtis m. scaparotti: yes. what we've done with any information group and across the interagency s-we've developed -- inter-ages these, is that we -- and across the is that we have developed nations that are vulnerable or , once that we thought we could have the best benefits and from a u.s. perspective now we've gone to the ambassador and our said, what are your objectives and how do we support those? >> thank you. >> general good to see you again. thank you for your service. so i know that my colleague just talked about the global
engagement center, but i want to address this as well, because i think it is an important topic. from its conception i believe it's an important role when it comes to countering messages perpetuated by our adversaries, both terrorist organizations and nation states. i'm sure glad that the state department has accepted the allocated transfer of funds from the department of defense to assist in the effort, but i find it somewhat problematic that there still exists a lack of leadership within the state department from the bottom all the way to the top. as he has in the fud, to leverage its capabilities to disrupt desstabilization campaigns aimed at the u.s. allies. and you have are from, how you are working with global
engagement center and how can we better use its capabilities? >> well, i can comment on our relationship. it's a very good one. we work with them consistently. they are a member of the rig which i talked about and through that, that's the direct connection with the work that the rig does, but even on a daily basis we know who to go to with respect to the information omm areons that we in u-c doing, or the things that we see. so it's a very good relationship. my comments have been directed on, i think we need a more robust effort. in terms hoff how we do that, that's really state's portfolio. >> so you noted in your testimony that russia is advancing its indirect and asymmetric capabilities in accordance on its concept of warfare doctrine.
the concept here states that nonmilitary means have grown or surpassed the use of force to achieve political or strategic goals. nonmilitary factors outweigh . -- nonmilitary factors outweigh military fact errors in that 4-1.rine do you feel comfortable that the nonmilitary assets of u.s. national power are being utilized effectively to adequately counter threats posed by russia, and can you describe the extent of your relationship with within the u.s. responsible for coordinating nonmilitary elements with you and your staff? >> well, first of all, i'll underscore that russia has a doctrine that in my view sees these activities below the level of conflict. there's a part of full spectrum. with an intent that if they can undermine our target country, through these types of means --
political destabilization, et cetera, never having to use a military force -- that is their objective. we work every day across the interagency. i have interagency representatives that are talented and capable and working hard with us to ensure that what we do is an interagency effort -- a whole government effort. so i don't mean to imply that we don't work that way. we do. but that's, you know, that's hard government work ballgames best because most of our ages, to include the dod are formed and focused on doing what we do best. and dod is the same way. so, you have to break some cultural barriers here and work on crossed interest. we can do this and we have done in the past. i would say we continue to do what we set out to do as a government. continue to reinforce the
capabilities that allow us to approach these things as an interagency. >> so, let me follow up with this. the recently published national defense strategy states that we are competing with russia. and i have a feeling russia may think it's already in a type of informational or political war with the united states. as a part of the doctrine, information operations are presented as integral to all six main phases of russian conflict development. the only nonmilitary measure spanning the entire spectrum, but europe is absent active armed conflict. we lack certain authorities to conduct our own information operations. so, how are you countering russia disinformation in europe without the broad authorities granted in larger operations or execute orders, understanding
that you will likely not get into details about how you feel we are adequately challenging russia in this space? curtis m. scaparotti: i will briefly answer that by saying that we engage through nato and eu as well as our partners in individual countries, in countering the russian message. all of this is truthful print. much can to be done through public affairs. then in others ways we have military information support teams that we provide specific we work directly with some of these foreign countries. i would leave it at that. you mentioned authorities. asked for authorities with respect to information operations.
those that i have requested i have been granted. i will leave it at that. i do want to to know that where i have asked for specific authorities, to this point, i have received what i have asked for. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. if you come prepared for the u.s. to move its embassy for -- in israel to jerusalem? >> do you believe we are prepared to move our embassy to jerusalem? >> today we are preparing to do that. a question that goes to state first as a leader met. i was just there. i am aware of the planning that is going on. i would respectfully go to them for the question of preparation. >> fair enough. russia, in your understanding, what are russia's
goals in the baltic seas? >> it is consistent with other places. as aestablished themselves respected global power. undermined the democratic values and the values of the west. they attained- over thed influence nations that border them, typically the ones that are in the former soviet union. even in the baltics they have that similar reaction. >> those type of things, what would you consider as far as their influence in that region, what troubles you most? presence of their disinformation campaign. wee political provocation --
see where they purchase social media or tv ststations. in a couple of the baltic countries you have a russian population that they target their message to and can share through language. the population is harder to penetrate by the government. it is a population that is easier for russian influence. they target that intake advantage of it. >> what tools can we utilize to help aid our allies over there andnst russian operations cyber operations, that type of thing? >> very close working relationship across our government. not simply in the military round but through the other forms of government. in order to help them assess, respond to, and understand the environment and learn from it.
estonia cyber center is next with center. the baltic nations have an understanding of russia and the threat in ways that we do not. we rely on them. it is a team effort. it works both ways. that is how we approach it. >> you believe it is working well? are you please? >> yes. >> how do they work with other u.s. agencies to utilize a whole of government approach? inin all of our challenges yukon, we approach it from older government. deputy is an experienced foreign diplomat. he was just the u.s. ambassador to italy. phil rieger. that tells you something right there. he gives us a direct connection into the inter-agencies,
particularly state. we have a number of interagency -- we have a number of interagency persons that are a part of my staff. they were day-to-day. our counter transnational said -- threats cell is a lot more civilian workforce than it is anybody in a uniform. make sure we have expertise. >> very good. thank you for all you do. i yield. >> thank you. general, thank you for being here today. thank you for your service to our country. i want to go back a little bit to the to present issue here. 2% issue here. you said it is going to be russia eventually having some issues with continuing to fund their military.
you mentioned it is going to take us 30 years to get where the plan wants to be. get european allies to where they need to be? what is the real number to get them to where they need to be? it inave not looked at that depth in terms of a real number that it would take. say that an investment in 2% will make a significant difference in the other nations. the way that we make sure that we have what we need is within nato we do a capability assessment. we just completed the cycle. we determine what the requirements are in nato to have an effective deterrence and defense. we assign each of the nations capability targets. they have to meet it as part of the 2%. theugh that, we can provide force of nato that we need.
we know that now. we just have to ensure that they make those investments in the capabilities that have been outlined. >> and plays a big role in that. i do not know if you have assessed to that level yet. assessed to that level yet. these economic cycles are something that is part of our history. a lot of these countries were hit pretty hard jury in the last downturn. how much time as a going to take some of these countries to get up to speed to the 2%? i think you mentioned that 15 are not area. how are they going to get there? to this in aspond
written form in more detail. we have taken a look at the countries. that,is a grouping of 5-7 then their financial plan, standards that they have to meet , they will have a very is it here to both eu and nato requirements. there's a group of countries that was analysis you know have a more difficult time. >> one of the issues that came up was, how we can address some of her issues with them with their ability to impact citizens in other countries. how we can do it to them. you mention that we have an advantage because of people's
representation of us of passing -- having a truthful media. we have this ongoing division over the media here. how do we let people know over there that we are truthful when within our country we are having the struggle on the truthfulness of the media? that is a difficult question to answer. i would say that the issue of truth in media is not just the united rates. it is a global issue now. with the development of our internet,ia and the we have lost what we once had when we had print media that had editors that have editorial standards. there is much of this that has no discipline within it. i think that is something that internationally we need to come to grips with. we have to determine how we're going to begin to discipline that. it is important for democracies
because of the role that truthful media and journalism plays. thank you. i yield. >> dr. winstrol? you for being it. i have a general question concerning eastern europe. i do not expect a deep dive answer. you mentioned a team approach to nations in europe. from your perspective, what are she eastern european nation wanting and needing? what do they want diplomatically, militarily, information stood sharing -- information sharing? what are they wanting, what we provide? i probably need to focus most on the military aspect of that. is, they want a
close partnership. they recognize our leadership in our capabilities. to have a post partnership so they can also develop their capabilities. militarily and otherwise? >> diplomatically etc.. those nations are greater allies. they are small. they're working very hard. they are the ones that are above 2% very quickly. they are investing in the capabilities that they believe they need to nest with ours. that is what we need to continue to do. we need to continue to help them in that regard. our presence there reinforces their populations. to be natoion members in some cases or to align with the west generally. obviously all those things
intertwine with our success there. when i talk about economics and things like that. i have always had a concern about the dependency upon russia for natural gas. the stronger their economy is, the better our military relationship can be, etc.. either things from where you sit? do you feel like we are hampered if we only did more economically? towardink we are working relieving some of the dependency on russia. i know those countries are as well. builtare facilities being that will allow us to transport natural gas. we should continue to do that. to coerce andergy compel at times. i appreciate it. i yield back.
>> thank you. thank you for your service. i thinkssing ukraine, it is important to look at some of the historical context. baker met with gorbachev, there was a discussion about the expansion of nato. our country made no formal commitments to gorbachev as putin claims. gorbachev said the spirit of the conversation suggested that we would not expand nato. when he came to power in ukraine and wanted to do business with the european union, the russians asked the united states whether we would be ok with a try patriot economic agreement where europe would do business with russia. the european union rejected that. omithe was ousted, you can came to the united states and said, why do we not call early elections and have a coalition.
it is unclear whether we were diplomatically for that. we then supported the regime change against him. i guess my first question, it is three parts. you think we made a strategic mistake by insisting that ukraine join nato? you believe we made a mistake by recognizing the coup against him? do you think we made a mistake -patriateving the tri agreement? >> i have not looked at those specific instances that you pointed out. i will give you one is a written statement after the hearing. >> i would appreciate that. your expertise. one of the things that has your expertise.n this one of the things that has served us well in this nation is the monroe doctrine. we believe that no one should interfere in our region.
assume for a second that russia is acting in a similar strategic interest. do you really believe, even if we have arms going to ukraine like the president wants, that we could ever outcompete the russians in ukraine? what they just increase their arms? >> if one looks at proximity, that is no advantage for russia. it is an advantage militarily. what i go back to is, what we believe as a fundamental principle is that people have a thereof determine government and have a government's lead, whether it is a democracy are what type of democracy it might be. that is the principle we fundamentally support here. >> i agree with you. john quincy adams had a very famous passage.
we should not be going out for monsters to destroy. that is not in the united states strategic interest. what do you think is our national security strategy check -- interest -- -- strategic interest? how does it make constituents in my district more secure? states has come to the assistance of a people and a reestablishseeks to themselves with the west in a democratic way and make reforms to do that. we have committed to that. i ink it is important that the united states be seen as a good ally in that. where that takes us in the ourre will be set against vital interest. i think it is important that we support those who seek
in the worldlues as well. otherwise we forfeit that russiat to others like would like to undermine and establish a world order that is counter to our interests. industry, seen a past -- history, it leads to conflict. >> no one disagrees that we should not recognize human interest. is that the most in our national interest? do you really think being bogged is russia are most strategic up on it? or is it china? i do not know that we are bogged down there. we are not fighting. they are fighting. for their own sovereignty. we are providing capability,
capacity building, and perform to their government. russia and china are both competitors. i particularly believe that in the shorter-term russia is an immediate threat at this point. they are more consistent threat. maybe in the longer term, china. that is a debate many will have. we need to pay attention to both. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wonder if you have any couldts, or if you explain why macedonia is having such a hard time in our hopes of being admitted into nato? will theye admitted, be a somewhat important ally to the united states efforts? >> i would probably refer you to state on that. they would like to seek a means to enter nato.
i've talked to their minister of defense about that. i think it is a matter of being able to with -- establish the the mapto meet principles that you have within nato. being confident and showing that there is a confident means to do that. >> i appreciate that. my next question, the cooperative threat reduction program has been a key nonproliferation enabler in the world for over 25 years. as part of your overall security cooperation efforts, ctr has been fundamental to reducing the threat of wmd proliferation. we continue to cwnd proliferation growth or terrorist networks and state-sponsored. recent efforts in moldova and ukraine highlight the security challenges the european gray zone nations face. can you comment on the success efforts thaty ctr
have been effective in your a or -- aor? would like to take that for a response as well to get into the detail of how he might change it. we address this and we work within nato with our partners to counter proliferation of transnational threats. has itnsnational threats is one of its fundamental tasks. i think we are having effect. i think it is positive. today more so than ever we probably need to be more focused on this because we have nonstate actors today that have the funding and capability to attain some of these weapons systems. passing those. i think it is important that we
maintain this focus and work with our partners to do this. >> my last question. you talked about the growing maritime threat in your a or. i was wondering if you could comment morsi -- more excessively about that. >> if you want detail on that i would prefer to do it in a classified document as well. the activity level of their maritime forces is up in europe. they are active now coming out of the high north. their northern fleet into the mediterranean. it is not necessarily something they could not do. it is not something they have normally done. they are deploying more. they are deploying at a higher
rate. the forces that they are deploying are being modernized with weapons systems. most of their ships now have a caliber system on them. it is both conventional and can be nuclear, if they choose to do so. it is a very good system. it provides reach and persistent. ship,er they have a whether it is under sea or on the surface, many of their ships now have a caliber system on them. >> appreciate that. thank you for your leadership. i yield. >> thank you. thank you for holding up for us in europe. general jimer mattis, current secretary of defense. i have found it is the first half of that that was harder to maintain. people understand the marines
write-off enemy. they were not always sure if they can trust us. you make our eastern europe allies trust us in the fight against russia? we are not willing to stand up to russia right here at home. it is a consistent theme as i have -- that i have heard as i traveled around the world. allies are not sure if they can trust america. give us a window to how you fight this fight on the day today in europe? >> i do not see that issue in the east. the first way that i do it is look at we are doing. we are rotating -- >> when the president comes out against nato and says we may not be a part of nato, that doesn't take -- >> the president has stated support for article five. we have deployed a lot of force
in the past year to europe on behalf of nato. , what'm trying to say is are we doing? edi, which congress has budgeted, is a substantial investment. our allies recognize that. >> let us talk about that for a second. the edi seems to be very heavily focused on conventional forces. it is not the way that russia is attacking us. russia is attempting -- attacking through the internet, by undermining their political process, by spilling disinformation. it does not seem like our effort is calibrated to meet that threat at all. it certainly was not when i visited there in 2015. i know that we have tried to make some modifications. i'm not sure if we have gone far enough. what can we do to improve our
ability to stand up to the type of warfare that russia is exercising today? >> first of all, we need to have all of that. we do need that conventional capability in place as a deterrent. it is an absolute signal to them of our commitment to article five and our commitment to nato and its partners. many of the things we're doing are what we need to continue to do. we are providing those nations with direct military information support coupled with our embassies working with them as well. work withs themselves is closely in terms of their public of force -- public affairs messaging. edi does fund some of the information operations that i do in you, as well. >> a percentage goes to that activity? >> i could give it to you if i
sat down and figured it out. it is a small part. information operations is not that expensive. >> what percentage of attack that you see, whether they be hybrid or disinformation campaigns, the attacks from russia, what percentage are these hybrid attacks versus conventional attacks? >> in terms of attacks within nato, most of this activity is below the level of conflict. >> they are not rolling any tanks and eastern europe. portions ofannex the ukraine, for instance. is purposelyity below the level of conflict. other other things that we should be doing on the committee to better meet this threat? it sounds to me like we could better proportion the budget. are there other things that we should reinforce our way so we could give more confidence for
allies that we will help them stand up to this serious threat? the memberspplaud of congress for their trips to europe, for instance. visits and open discussion with them is very important. it is a direct demonstration of the united states interest in their security. i would encourage those as well. continue to do what you are doing today. have a good assessment of our security needs. what should be funded and how you fund them. this budget has been very important to enabling me to do in thedo with our allies security of the urine atlantic. you need to continue that. information operations is not overly expensive when compared to conventional force structure rotational forces.
my request through edi is structured on what i believe we most need for deterrence today. , i put ito account forward to dod the percentages of what is required for a coherent defense. i take that deliberately as i this budget to the department of defense. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for yesterday's discussion as well as today's. my apologies for not being here. there is another general to whom i had to give some attention this morning. the edi fund, should that be part of the base or should it continue to be a no go? i think eventually it should go to the base.
in order to get us into the base as a fundamental part of our security. i would say's, i would like to ensure it is protected. congress has and is aside as edi for specific objectives to be a ticked -- attained. either way, you need the edi specifically for the work you are doing and eastern europe? >> i needed because they do not have the force posture that i need. it is going to take edi to build that. >> i want to make it clear. we are going to be dealing with this in the next couple of months. we talked about it a little bit yesterday. it seems to me we want to keep it separate. let it hang out there. we need edi separate and
.vailable for you to carry out you and your troops are doing an extra very job. -- extraordinary job. a couple of other things. lng.n g -- gas is a tool used from russia for economic purposes. we are exporting gas here in the united states. we should consider the strategic tool to deter russia. it would be in our interests to europeze natural gas to as a way of deterring russia and pushing back in the most theirgful of ways, economy. i suspect we up to do an economic equation here and see what it would cost to provide it
toeurope at a cost similar what russia is providing gas. it could give a significant leverage. one final question. do you need a new low yield nuclear weapon to determine deter russia? >> the supplemental missile systems are part of that. it ensures that we can be confident in response across any scenario that might be projected. i do believe that we need those systems. >> i will yield back. thank you. >> you have answered lots of questions about hybrid information and political warfare. wet of the reason is because all are challenged by thinking of warfare in nontraditional
ways. the role of the military in doing that. you answered a number of questions about edi. the conversation was very interesting. i want to ask to the last question on nuclear deterrence. can you step back from particular weapon systems and talk more generally about the value of having a credible nuclear deterrent with an adversary who openly talks about using nuclear to counter conventional? region where a lot of allies depend on our nuclear deterrence for their security. is, many ofncerns us thought that we didn't have to worry about that stuff anymore.
a lot of the weapons and delivery systems, the thinking, has atrophied after the fall of the soviet union. we have to pay more attention to it now. talkbroader sense, can you about the role that a credible nuclear deterrent plays in what you are having -- what you are trying to do everyday? >> i will focus on, as you step back and look at a credible deterrence and importance of that they understand is responsive across the spectrum. when you look at escalation management, you talked about the russian comment that they will escalate to deescalate. it is a cognitive exercise. it is an influence on the utin on theker, on p other side. andedible nuclear capacity our will to use it if necessary
known byxtreme case, the adversary, is paramount here. across the spectrum. there escalate to deescalate comments were centered on a capability at a low and to gain leverage. what we are seeing through the mpr is that you will not have that leverage. we are going to drive this to a higher threshold. he can be confident in that as into any kind of an escalation at all. that is why it is important. standpoint, we talked yesterday about deterrence when it comes to space. we talk about deterrence when it comes to cyber. challenges i think for all of us is to reinvigorate our deterrence thinking and intellectual purposes.
>> if you don't push back on something you're going to get more of it. they have a history of these targeted assassinations. i think it's part of that continuum where they are trying to undermine democracy and intimidate people who go against them. it's disturbing the civilized world has to stand up against that. i will give the administran i'll give the administration credit. today they did announce implementation of sanctions. that is a way to push back. reporter: what's your current thinking on stationing permanent forces in europe? current concept?
what is your thought there? >> we have had conversations with the general about this. the key is that we want to convey to our european allies that we are here to stay. i think we are. that is not necessarily mean that you have to move whole families to commissaries over there. there are different ways to convey that. he has some specific kinds of capabilities he would like permanently. maybe have a, what we would think of as a permanent place around which units rotate in and out. there are various ways to accomplish that goal. the point is to convey, not only to our allies, but to the russians that we are here to stay. >> a lot of members asked about moving edi funding. >> we did that last year.
just to do this. a convey that this is not temporary thing. that we are going to support this effort to defend that nato. make it part of the base, how you protected from being enough with other priorities? i thought it was interesting. it is a deeper level of thought about this. we will continue to talk with him and think about it. what we do not want to do is move it and then have it erode away. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> president trump backed the idea of shifts to the base. did you see the testimony yesterday? >> i did not. >> do you think that the pentagon might be more open?
>> maybe. we made a lot of changes in last year's bill when it comes to space. what everybody is going to be watching for his how well their the air force moves to implement what we did last year. if they are reluctant to do that, that will add fuel to the argument that they cannot deal with that they are too culturally dominated by air. people are watching this implementation at the same time talking about, what makes sense for the future. we have real issues in space right now. they have an opportunity to reassure people that they can handle it. and are willing to. >> think so much. -- think you so much. --
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] >> tonight, testimony from interior secretary on president trump's 2019 budget request for his department. he spoke before the senate energy and natural resources committee and we'll air that tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, what's next for the state department after the firing of rex tillerson. and the nomination of current krajinovic director mike pompeo to be the next secretary of state. we'll talk with gary schmidt of the american enterprise institute center for security studies. then dan hawkers of the national
association of community health centers on the role community health centers play in health care. and the new republic's matt ford discusses his recent piece on the need to dismantle the department of homeland security. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern saturday morning. join the discussion. >> neither chamber of congress is in session today. but the house and senate will be back next week to consider government spending, with current funding set to expire on friday. the government has already shut down twice this year for three days in january, and for a few hours in february. appropriations committee members are currently working on a spending bill to cover the rest of the 2018 budget year, with negotiations continuing. you can follow the government funding issue next week on the c-span networks, as well as online at cspan.org. with the free c-span radio app. and some congressional news to pass on. the oldest member of congress,
new york representative louise slaughter, died earlier today at the age of 88, after suffering a fall last week. she served the people of rochester, new york, the last 31 years. and currently serves as the ranking member of the rules committee. she is survived by three children. house speaker paul ryan released his statement saying louise slaughter was tough on failing -- unfailingly gracious and unrelenting in fighting for her ideas. she was simply great. and house minority unanimous -- leader nancy pelosi said this -- >> at today's white house briefing, mark short, president trump's legislative affairs director, accused senate minority leader chuck shuke -- chuck schumer of intentionally delaying the president's nominees to key positions within the administration. this is 15 minutes.