▶ 0:05:00The subcommittee on Europe will come to order. The purpose of this hearing is to provide members with an informed perspective of the US policy toward NATO in and an opportunity to discuss NATO's trajectory in advance of the June submit in the H. And now recognize myself for an opening statement. The HEG will be focused on funding for NATO.
▶ 0:05:25Uh this first chart, and would you put it up and blow it up as much as you can, uh shows the NATO nations. The they are listed top to bottom by GDP. They are listed on the right side by the percentage that they provide. Can you blow that up more? blow it up. So they Okay.
▶ 0:05:54So I want to I I do not. So I want to just talk you through this. Of course, US is at the top with almost 29 trillion dollars in GDP. Go down to Germany, UK, France, Italy, Canada, and Spain. Down here you've got the front line countries. You've got Lithuania, you've got Latvia, you've got Estonia. Uh some of the Balkan countries are down below.
▶ 0:06:21The ones that I want to point out and the the summit the summit tells us that they are going to be going above 3% somewhere. Easy. So I want to point out right here we have got some the major economies in NATO specifically France, Italy and Canada that are well below Fran uh Italy, Canada and Spain I'm sorry that are well below their current 2% uh commitment.
▶ 0:06:51Uh these are major economies. This is a major change that needs to happen at the summit. Uh next Now, just a couple of comparisons. Uh, this compares Poland to everyone else on the eastern flank. The eastern flank being defined as Estonia, Latia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary.
▶ 0:07:18Poland has a GDP of about 840 uh billion uh billion dollars. Eastern flank is 8.90. So, they're not The defense budgets are quite a bit dissimilar. Their percentage though, Poland is at over 4% currently and going higher. The eastern flank is at 2.36 and going higher and has already committed to go higher. Next slide.
▶ 0:07:46And one more just to give you an idea of where the funding in NATO stands. This is Germany versus the eastern flank. So we've added Poland to the east of Germany. So Germany has the 4.6, Eastern flank has 1.7. Uh here are the defense budgets. Look at this. The eastern flank is providing a higher percentage than Germany is.
▶ 0:08:10So my point in all of of these three slides is there is work to do in the summit later this month. Now I know that people have made commitments, but what you just saw were 2024. The last year we had a full year's uh funding toward NATO. uh that is that is a major problem that uh I wanted to highlight. Uh we've got other issues uh in this in this briefing but that's the one that I wanted to start with.
▶ 0:08:38Uh the first thing we have to start with is everyone pulling their weight in NATO. With that I yield back and I recognize the ranking Mr. Can I make a question inquired to the chair. Um those are important charts that you just presented. Could you make copies so that we could look at them here and let's have copies made so in Shouldn't be that difficult for the staff. Absolutely. So we can do it now. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Costa. We will do that, Mr. Katy.
▶ 0:09:13I don't know if this is working. No, it's not working. How's this? Oh, good. All right, there we go. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today. And I want to thank our witnesses for their participation uh in today's hearing.
▶ 0:09:33More than 75 years ago, in the wake of World War II, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established to forge a safe, secure, and prosperous transatlantic alliance. From its inception, NATO's founding charter and its article 5 principle of collective defense have been the underpinning of our national security and that of our European partners as well.
▶ 0:09:56We saw this in action after 9/11 when our allies sacrificed treasure and blood in our NATO's necessity came into full view in February of 2022 when the Russian Federation initiated uh a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Since the invasion, NATO has marshaled billions of dollars in military support to the Ukrainians who have defended the front line of freedom at great human cost.
▶ 0:10:26During the 2024 Washington summit, support for Ukraine within NATO was clear as allies agreed that Russia remains the most significant and direct threat to the security of the alliance. Just one year later, the Russian threat to NATO remains all oppressing and all the more real. At that summit, NATO allies also agreed to increase defense spending to build on the alliance deterrence.
▶ 0:10:51Countries like Poland and the Baltic states have well exceeded the 2% mark, while others uh like the United Kingdom and Germany have committed to and pass legislation to ensure their defense spending increases in accordance with the alliance's requirements.
▶ 0:11:08Meanwhile, other countries have lang behind the 2% mark, and it's absolutely imperative uh that all allies commit to adequate defense spending levels at the upcoming uh NATO summit in uh in Hag. Unfortunately, NATO continues to face serious threats to its security. The administration's policy towards NATO has been inconsistent and chaotic.
▶ 0:11:37It's no wonder that the alliance is just confused about where Trump and his cabinet are on these critical issues. On the war in Ukraine, Trump's Secretary of State has said Russia started it. Meanwhile, President Trump said Ukraine started it. Trump's Secretary of the Treasury says Putin is a war criminal.
▶ 0:12:02Trump's chief negotiator for Russia, Steve Witco, said Putin is not a bad guy and that he's trustworthy. Secretary of State often said Putin was a war criminal. When I questioned him two weeks ago, Secretary of State wouldn't say that. At the United Nations, the Trump administration abandoned our allies on a resolution siding with Russia, Barus, and North Korea. It's no wonder Trump's ambassador to Ukraine, Bridget Brink, resigned, citing policy disagreements.
▶ 0:12:31As we approach the 76 NATO summit in the HEG, later this month, the Trump administration must take advantage of the opportunity and set the record straight. First, the administration must not step back from its leadership role in NATO. Uh reported proposals to abandon the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, the European position, or reduce the focus uh that that's there in the force posture in Europe. uh because any of this will do nothing but harm uh the deterrent effect of our alliance.
▶ 0:12:59Second, the Trump administration must continue to encourage allies and partners to spend more in defense. I know this sentiment is bipartisan and I want to thank uh Secretary General uh Rutafa as well as Secretary General, former Secretary General Stolenberg and Ambassador Smith for your work on doing this in the previous administration.
▶ 0:13:20Third, the Trump administration must make clear at the upcoming upcoming NATO summit that the United States and the entire alliance is prepared to increase the cost on Russia for its ongoing war of aggression in Ukraine. This must start with acknowledging the facts on the ground, something that the Secretary of State was unable to do when he testified before this committee last month. This includes telling the truth. Russia is the aggressive state.
▶ 0:13:49Vladimir Putin is a war criminal who's carried out atrocious crimes in Ukraine, including the kidnapping of 20,000 children, and the United States must hold the Kremlin accountable for this war and horrific crimes Russia has committed in its wake. Anything less represents a failure of American leadership and an inability to uphold key American values. Finally, the Trump administration must build upon the prior administration's effort to expand NATO's relationship with the Indo-Pacific countries.
▶ 0:14:19Russia's war in Ukraine has a direct implication on the Taiwan Strait and ensuring robust relationships with our Indoacific allies is vitally important for this relationship. I want to thank our witnesses again for being here and I yield back the balance of my time. Other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. Uh we are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today on this important topic.
▶ 0:14:46I was extremely impressed with the written testimony of all three. I'd like to start uh and introduce Beer Admiral retired Mark McGomery uh CCTI senior director and senior fellow at the foundation for defense of democracies. Uh sir you are recognized for five Chairman Self, Ranking Member Keing, distinguished members of the committee on behalf of the Foundation for Defense Democracies, thank you for having me here to testify.
▶ 0:15:13Look, we're here to discuss the future of NATO, the alliance that successfully led the Western democracies through the Cold War and the US triumph over the Soviet Union. And I think that while the political, security, and economic dynamics have changed marketkedly over the past 30 years, I firmly believe that NATO can still serve as the organizing principle that guides the transatlantic alliance through the challenges posed by a really rapacious authoritarian state, Russia, as well as the Chinese-led access of aggressors that really supports
▶ 0:15:43and enables Russia. For far too long, many of our NATO allies have ignored these threats. They failed to invest in the alliance. Chairman self's do diagram showed you that they've even failed to invest in their own defense and warnings by successive Republican and Democratic presidents went unheated for 30 years.
▶ 0:16:01However, thanks to Vladimir Putin's violent military aggression against Ukraine and his persistent efforts to undermine democratic governments in the Balkans and throughout Eastern Europe and combined with President Trump's vocal complaints about European defense spending, we are starting to see NATO members finally stepping up to the plate.
▶ 0:16:19I too appreciate Secretary General Mark Rut as he antic as he's directed NATO member he anticipates now that NATO members will agree to increase the defense spending target to 5% of gross def uh domestic product GDP at the NATO summit in June.
▶ 0:16:35This increased spending is essential and President Trump has been right to call out the previous European apathy on this issue and that reason is because Russia and Chinese threats challenge the territorial integrity, democratic stability and economic prosperity of NATO. Neither Russia nor China will be cajolled or coddled into compliance or even peaceful coexistence. And both Europe and America need to recognize that we are in a long-term fight with the axis of aggressors.
▶ 0:17:06But between these two authoritarians, the chief threat to peace and democracy in Europe is Russia. And Putin is not some misunderstood regional leader or an agrieved actor reacting to NATO expansion. He is instead a stone cold killer. He's launched wars of conquest, invading his neighbors three times in the past 20 years. He has ruthlessly and violently crushed democratic movements growing in his hinterlands and he is currently harassing, torturing and murdering his domestic critics.
▶ 0:17:37If NATO is going to prevail against this Russian menace, it is going to need US leadership. It is going to need European defense investments and it's going to need collective action to punish its adversaries. My written testimony covered 10 recommendations to achieve success. I'd like to highlight five of them here. First is the one chairman self highlighted. We need to establish and maintain NATO defense spending targets at 5% of GDP.
▶ 0:18:03NATO's national governments, even those not within range of Russia's long-range fires, must commit to Secretary General Rut's proposed new spending pledge of 3.5% of the GDP on defense and another 1.5% on defense enablers like their industrial base, infrastructure protection, and cyber security. This includes the United Second, we need to act to protect the critical infrastructure essential to NATO's military mobility.
▶ 0:18:29Moving troops and equipment efficiently over land, sea, and air is essential to NATO's ability to project power and sustain forces to fight and win our wars. European countries must prioritize critical infrastructure spending to align with NATO's war plans, not their domestic plans, particularly as it relates to flowing US, UK, and French forces into and through Europe. Third, we need to maintain US enablers and force posture in Europe.
▶ 0:18:57NATO strength is measured by how quickly it can move and fight. That speed depends on US enablers, our strategic lift, our operational logistics, our intelligence, our command and control infrastructures. These are capabilities that no other NATO ally can provide. That is why forward stationing US forces and equipment across Europe is essential to NATO's war fighting capacity. The answer to this challenge from Russia is not for America to do less, but for Europe to do more.
▶ 0:19:26Fourth, we need to arm Ukraine to defend itself and survive, and not force Ukraine to agree to an unacceptable ceasefire negotiated under duress or even worse, to lose the war. And Ukraine needs two things above all else. First, they need constant US intelligence support. And second, they need access to the Americanmade munitions for them or for Europe to purchase. And then fifth, we have to punish Russia for its aggression.
▶ 0:19:51Putin will only change his calculus if the cost of continuing the war becomes unsustainable for him. The United States and Europe must increase pressure and impose costs on Russia by ramping up sanctions on the Russian war machine, starting with its energy revenues and the shadow fleet of fossil fuel deliverers that support In summary, I think we need a comprehensive transatlantic effort, defense budget that that reflect today's challenges, the resilience to withstand assaults from adversaries, and a cleareyed commitment
▶ 0:20:22to the alliance. If we have those three pillars in place, the United States and its European allies will once again prevail over the forces that threaten peace and security both in Europe and globally. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. Uh, thank you, Admiral. We had a uh clock malfunction just like they do in basketball games. But thank you for your testimony. Uh I now introduce Dr. Nile Gardner uh director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and Bernard and Barbara Lis Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
▶ 0:20:52Welcome, sir. You're recognized for five minutes. Uh my name is Nile Gardner. I'm the director of the Margaret That Center for Freedom of the Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own. My remarks today are a summary of my written statement. NATO remains the essential force that holds back the Russian bear on its eastern flank and keeps in check the imperialist ambitions of Vladimir Putin's murderous regime.
▶ 0:21:21Its role is vital in the defense of Europe in the face of Russian aggression. Without NATO, the brutal reality is that Russian forces would very likely today be rolling into the Baltic states and deep into Europe. We should not underestimate Putin's malevolent intentions and his desire to conquer further territory in Europe. To sustain the alliance, America's NATO allies must fully participate in burden sharing with the United States.
▶ 0:21:49The Trump presidency is rightly applying pressure on America's allies to do far more to foster true partnership rather than dependency, especially as the US must increasingly focus on the immense threat from communist China in the Indoacific. This cannot be a two-tier alliance where the United States carries the overwhelming military burden for the defense of the free world while some European allies build vast welfare states.
▶ 0:22:16In 2024, only 22 NATO members spent the 2% of GDP on defense agreed to by the alliance in 2014. This is hugely irresponsible. This includes some of the biggest nations in NATO, including Italy, Spain, and Canada. Last year, Canada embarrassingly spent just 1.4% of GDP on defense, a shockingly low figure for the world's 10th largest economy.
▶ 0:22:41As Heritage Foundation research has shown, European NATO members have collectively underfunded their own defense by $827 billion since 2014, nearly equal to the entire annual US defense budget. This is a staggering figure. As NATO leaders gather shortly in the Hague, there is however growing calls for optimism. President Trump's tough love strategy has made a tremendous impact.
▶ 0:23:09In just the first few months of his presidency, Donald Trump has already significantly strengthened the resolve of the NATO alliance. President Trump is not the destroyer of NATO, as his critics allege, but the savior of NATO. Trump's presidency is a wake-up call for a complacent alliance that had been sleepwalking to decline and possible self-destruction.
▶ 0:23:30Thanks to US leadership today, which was strikingly absent under Joe Biden, who was barely in command on the world stage, the complacency of past decades has been thrown out of the window. Since Donald Trump took office in January, there has been a dramatic change of approach among our 31 NATO partners, including Europe's economic powerhouse of Germany, with nearly every European NATO member announcing plans to significantly increase defense spending, enhance overall military capabilities, and grow the defense
▶ 0:24:00industrial base. This is the true the Trump effect in action across the Atlantic. But words are not enough. It is time for all of America's NATO allies to make a firm commitment to immediately match America's current spending level of 3.5% of GDP and pledge to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP. The US also cannot allow NATO to be undercut by grandio visions of a European Union army that would split the alliance and divert vital resources away from NATO.
▶ 0:24:30One of the biggest threats to the future of NATO is posed by French President Emanuel Mcron's calls for greater strategic autonomy for Europe. Moving away from the United States and moving closer to an accommodation with Beijing, the United States must fight the flawed notion that Europe security rests upon delusional ideas of a militarily powerful EU, which would replace NATO nation state cooperation with Brussels imposed separationalism.
▶ 0:24:56Macron's perilous rhetoric is exactly what Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese Premier Xi Jinping wish to hear. The US should also strongly oppose uh the massively reckless and incredibly dangerous decision taken by Britain's socialist government led by Kristama to hand over direct control of the Chaos Islands to Maitius, a close Chinese ally. The islands are the home of the vital Anglo-American military base of Diego Garcia.
▶ 0:25:26This is a major gift to communist China at Britain's expense and greatly undermines US strategic interests and NATO cohesion. The Chagel surrender is the worst foreign policy move by British Prime Minister of modern era and a betrayal of the USUK special relationship. In conclusion, the United States has a significant national interest in supporting a strong NATO alliance. A secure Europe and a robust transatlantic alliance greatly advances the security of the American people.
▶ 0:25:56American exceptionalism is the most powerful force for liberty in the world today. It is greatly strengthened by America's alliances and NATO is at the very heart of the transatlantic partnership. Thank you. Uh thank you sir. I now recognize the honorable Julianne Smith, former US permanent representative to NATO at the US State Department. Recognized for five minutes. Chairman Cell, Ranking Member Keiting, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity today to speak to you about NATO.
▶ 0:26:23For more than 75 years, NATO has been the bedrock of transatlantic security. From the Cold War to the Balkans, from counterterrorism to cyber defense, the alliance has consistently adapted to meet new challenges. Yet NATO's enduring strength lies not only in its military might, but in the shared values of its members and their collective commitment to defend one another.
▶ 0:26:47For these past decades, NATO has superbly served both US and European interests by keeping the peace in Europe, which allowed our economies to boom. In recent years, NATO has undergone one of its most significant transformations in decades. In response to Russia's vicious invasion of Ukraine, the alliance has shown historic unity and resolve. Every single member of the alliance has offered economic, humanitarian or military support to Ukraine.
▶ 0:27:17And NATO launched a new NATO Ukraine council to enable Ukraine to sit at the table as an equal partner. NATO also welcomed two new members, Finland and Sweden. And on the eastern eastern flank, NATO established four new multinational battalions, bolstering the alliance's forward defense posture from the Baltic to the Black Sea. At the same time, NATO has expanded its partnerships in the Indoacific.
▶ 0:27:43That reflects our shared recognition that security challenges like cyber attacks are increasingly global. In 2022, NATO mentioned China in its strategic concept for the very first time. And most critically, we have seen a striking rise in European defense spending. Allies are investing more in their own security. Today, 23 allies spend 2% of their GDP on defense, up from six just four years ago.
▶ 0:28:13That momentum is set to accelerate. Later this month, NATO leaders will gather in the Hague for their annual summit. Allies are expected to announce a new commitment to spend 3.5% of GDP on hard defense and another 1.5% on related items like infrastructure. This is very good news.
▶ 0:28:33For decades, Europeans have underinvested in their own security and due to Europe's generous military support to Ukraine in recent years, the current capability gaps in Europe are acute. We should celebrate this progress, but we must also be cleareyed about some of the associated challenges. And let me mention just three. First, more money alone will not fix the fragmentation of Europe's defense industrial base.
▶ 0:29:02Without meaningful work to coordinate procurement, standard size standardize requirements and deepen defense industrial cooperation. This influx of funding runs the risk of simply reinforcing the inefficiencies that have long plagued European defense. Consider tanks. Unlike the US, which fields a single main battle tank, the M1, NATO's European members have more than a dozen different types of tanks.
▶ 0:29:31This kind of fragmentation complicates joint operations, undermines NATO's cohesion, and slows production and procurement. NATO must ensure that increased spending leads to increased capability, not just duplicated or siloed efforts. Second, spending needs a strategy, and right now, the alliance lacks a coherent approach to dealing with Russia.
▶ 0:29:55Beyond deterrence, NATO's long-term posture remains unsettled and so do our collective objectives regarding regarding Moscow. NATO allies created a plan to tackle such questions when they committed last year to unveil a new Russia strategy during this year's summit in the H. But the alliance paused work on that strategy for fear that it might not reach consensus in the current political climate. That was a mistake.
▶ 0:30:25Without a clearly articulated and forward-looking Russia strategy, we risk losing the political rationale for sustained investment. Finally, the alliance today is grappling with a growing trust deficit, which is quietly shaping the way that allies approach increased defense spending. Many European governments worry that US support for NATO is now conditional and subject to sudden shifts. Some allies worry about the recent US shift away from support for Ukraine.
▶ 0:30:55These new uncertainties are leading allies to hedge their bets. Instead of making bold, long-term investments in shared NATO capabilities or better co-production efforts with the United States, some allies are focusing solely on capabilities made in Europe.
▶ 0:31:14Unless this trust gap is addressed directly with steady US leadership, transparency, and a shared strategic vision, America's security will be undermined, and the alliance as a whole will risk missing the full potential of the current momentum. In some, NATO remains the most successful military alliance in history, and it is crucial to both US and European security.
▶ 0:31:42But the way we manage this moment will define the next generation of transatlantic security. We must lead with vision, with principle, with humility and we must invest wisely and anchor our efforts in strategy and solidarity. Thank you very much and I look forward to your questions. Uh thank you very much for three strong testimonies. I now recognize myself for five minutes.
▶ 0:32:07Uh I want to start with uh yes I want to start with u what I think is one of the most unstable areas of of NATO and that is in the western Balkans. Uh as you know or may not know General Cavolei told me in my recent visit with him that Bosnia and Herzgoa could collapse overnight.
▶ 0:32:32Uh and you may remember back in 1999 NATO in actually their first operation went to war for Kosovo by bombing Ser Serbia. Uh we now have and if you look at the map you have Slovenia, you have Croatia, there's Bosnia, there's Montenegro, there's Albania, uh there's Bulgaria, there's Romania surrounding three entities that are not part of NATO. Everyone I just named are part of NATO.
▶ 0:33:00You've got Bosnia Herziggova that's split between the Croat Muslims and the Serbska Republic of Serbska. You've got Serbia and you've got Kosovo. Kosovo wants to be the president tells me that NATO membership of Kosovo is the most important issue for Kosovo. And yet we have four NATO members uh some of whom actually were in NATO back in 1999 that participated in protecting Kosovo from Serbia.
▶ 0:33:29Now we've got um uh I would like to know start with you Dr. Gardner. Uh what can we do to bring more stability to the Western Balkans which is a flash point has been historically and traditionally a flash point uh to bring stability to the Western Balkans through admitting Kosovo to NATO. Is that a viable solution? Uh thank you very much for your question uh Mr.
▶ 0:33:58chairman and I think the the the situation in the in the Balkans today is one of upheaval um ongoing crisis especially with regard to Bosnia Herzgoina where we have a a fundamental I think lack of of uh national sovereignty self-determination uh you have in effect a sort of European elite that rules over Bosnavina And
▶ 0:34:29we need to see I think a uh the restoration of full uh sovereignty and self-determination and and I think that um as long as you have uh this this EU driven elite that actually in effect controls uh the nation uh you're not going to be able to move forward and end uh I think the tremendous tensions that exist within within that region.
▶ 0:34:52Uh with regard to uh to Kosovo, I think great steps have been taken uh in terms of uh advances within within the nation. They clearly seek uh to be part of the the NATO alliance. Um I think that uh with regard to Kosovo, there has been a lot of positive uh developments. I I think we'll have to assess how things move in the coming months and and the next uh next two years or so.
▶ 0:35:19But um I have to say that um there there is growing optimism with regard to uh the the broader outlook for uh for Kosovo and for future participation in in NATO. I I do remain optimistic on that on that side. Thank you, Admiral Montgomery. I I'll take a slightly more aggressive approach and say that I think Serbia and the Republic of Serbsky are both bad actors who place Balkan stability at risk.
▶ 0:35:43I think their leaders Vuch and Dudik are thugs um who are intentionally I think Dudik is trying to make republic the Bosnia largely a tinderbox and Vhuch has aims on uh you know eliminating Kosvar sovereignty. Our response needs to be strong. We need to support K4 the NATO force that's in um Kosovo as a stabilizing force. Make sure it's properly equipped and enabled with European and American um support.
▶ 0:36:12But most importantly, we do need to move Kosovo along the path to further European integration through both the European Union and NATO. And the United States used needs to use its significant power to push countries like Spain who oppose this and to doing the right thing and allow Kosovo to enter uh the eur the broader European environment. Thank you, Ambassador. I'm I'm I need to make one more point.
▶ 0:36:37I appreciated your point about more money does not mean our industrial base is sufficient and you pointed out the European industrial base but our own industrial base needs reform and reenerg re-energized as well. Would you like to comment on that in my last 20 seconds? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for raising the Western Balkans. Just quickly, uh this is a region that demands attention from three different corners of the world. NATO has to remain engaged.
▶ 0:37:05The European Union must stay engaged to continue to pursue diplomatic efforts to work towards peace and the US needs to show up and be present and engage. If not, Russia and China are waiting in the wings and play an very active role in that neighborhood trying to divide the folks in the region and divide Europe from the United States. Unpredict. Thank you. My time is up. So to to honor the time, I will have that question submitted to you in writing. I now recognize Mr. Keon, the ranking member.
▶ 0:37:35Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Ambassador Smith, I was uh curious, too. Uh, and I think this is worth mentioning uh the US commitment to Ukraine just isn't one with NATO uh as we're dealing with continued nuclear threats, particularly in Iran, we know the danger uh of those threats. Well, decades ago, there was a commitment made to Ukraine.
▶ 0:38:02Can you talk about the US commitment to Ukraine before and why that commitment was so important? So, there have been multiple uh Thank you uh ranking member Keading. Uh there have been multiple commitments to Ukraine uh over the years. First and foremost, the NATO alliance promised in 2008 that Ukraine would become a member of the alliance.
▶ 0:38:24But Ukraine has also gone through its own process of ridding itself of any sort of nuclear weapons program with the hope that the United States and other countries would come to its aid. How big an arsenal was that? I mean there was the US, there was Russia. Where was Ukraine back then? It was it was significant.
▶ 0:38:44not on the scale of of Russia, but this was an arsenal that would have had it remained served as a very effective deterrent to Russia's aggression that we saw in February before evendeed this. And that commitment said that US would defend aggression against Ukraine. Indeed. And so here we are and now we have NATO allies joining us. I'm curious, how many times has article 5 been implemented by NATO? Only once, sir.
▶ 0:39:13And that was of course after 911 in the United States when allies from that we all benefited but uh indeed I was in Afghanistan and Iraq I saw uh NATO soldiers uh I saw them there defending and many times unpopular in their own countries uh the US defense in that regard. I'm curious too uh if Putin is successful in Ukraine uh Admiral what would that mean for US investment?
▶ 0:39:42You know, we're talking a lot about money here. What about the cost of Putin being successful in Ukraine? What would NATO what would the United States, you do you believe, have to deploy in Eastern Europe? And how expensive would that be? Well, if he's successful in Ukraine, and I don't think he will be, but if he was successful in Ukraine, it would put it would put tremendous pressure on the Baltic states in Poland. The Sulvaki gap, the the area that he would like to grab there is very easy.
▶ 0:40:11So for us to counter that it would take we already have a brigade in Poland. It would take a division in Poland. We have battalions in the Baltic states. It would take brigades in the Baltic states. In other words, at a time when we are considering reducing our footprint in Europe, we would actually have to significantly increase at least those rotational forces. And wouldn't you say in your experience deployment of troops is far more expensive than uh assets? It it is. Yes, sir.
▶ 0:40:38that it it would be a lot more expensive than the uh 32 or 34 billion worth of weaponry. And we talked too about uh the need for uh our own country to do better in in terms of uh procurement and dealing with our assets, but wasn't in fact uh we were in a period of modernization in our own country among armed services as well.
▶ 0:40:58And so we were modernizing force and many of these outdated by our perspective assets were so useful to Ukraine and wasn't uh uh Ambassador Smith wasn't the investment of US dollars uh most of that money stayed here. Is that true? Most of it stayed here in jobs and to modernize our own. So we benefited by this investment not just Ukraine. Absolutely.
▶ 0:41:22In many cases, Europeans have been purchasing equipment in the United States from our defense industrial base to send to Ukraine as well as they've purchased equipment for their own use after they've donated more dated equipment to Ukraine. So this these contributions have come back to the United States and America's own commitments, the money that's been dedicated to Ukraine has gone into building out our own capabilities as we've donated others.
▶ 0:41:52And how important from a diplomatic standpoint is it to be consistent. You know that I look I listen as many people do to the comments of Victor Orban in Hungary and the things he's saying. How discordant is the comments by someone like Victor Orban in Hungary uh in our effort? Well, it is disturbing to hear comments from our friends in Hungary that they have very mixed views on supporting Ukraine.
▶ 0:42:19They have found some smaller ways to support Ukraine. But this has been a challenge across the alliance to maintain that unity. But the key to it has been US leadership. And when the US lead, it brings the allies together. Would you say uh a savior of NATO would say you're on you're you're on your own or go it alone? Does that make sense? No. No. Donald Trump said those. I yield back. Uh thank you. And I recognize the representative from Ohio, Mr. Davidson.
▶ 0:42:50Uh thank you, chairman. Thank our witnesses. Appreciate the timely hearing today. Microphone. Well, the impressed, but it works, just not well. So, if the sound guy can do something about that, that'd be great. But, um, so let me start over. Um, so thank you for the hearing. It's timely.
▶ 0:43:15And I would ask unanimous consent to submit, uh, Vice President Vance's speech in Munich for the record. The administration sets the foreign policy for our our country and the administration's been very clear where the Biden administration wasn't. The Biden administration never would define the mission in Ukraine. They would never say what exactly they want to accomplish.
▶ 0:43:38Uh the Trump administration's been clear in Ukraine by saying we want to help restore peace. uh and that is what the president and secretary of state and every other uh tool in the executive branch is trying to do is to restore peace. When you look at um vice president Vance's speech in Munich, he asked the fundamental question, what exactly are we defending and not just territory but ideas uh and values?
▶ 0:44:09And I think it's noteworthy because we see people from um Western Europe claiming asylum in Hungary so they don't go to jail for free speech or for participating in a political party like AFD or the now majority party in Poland or the winner of the presidential election from the conservative party there.
▶ 0:44:32So you see uh values that are undermining the institution and the United States by funding NATO essentially becoming the deacto security force for NATO has enabled Europe to spend their money on everything but defense. Uh we've we've served as their defense and it's been the umbrella to which they've extended their membership eastward. So, we're pulling security while they're undermining uh the values that made us uh the West.
▶ 0:45:00The the values that when I was in Berlin uh walking through Checkpoint Charlie in the days after 9 1989 that we said we were defending and instead it's the other way. So, you know, Ambassador Smith, I just want to be clear because of this ongoing discussion about Ukraine. Is Ukraine a NATO member country? It is not. I didn't think so. Yeah, I we're certain of that. one of NATO's closest partners, but we seem to keep treating NATO as a uh Ukraine as a member of NATO. Should we make uh Ukraine a member of NATO?
▶ 0:45:30Uh the alliance agreed in 2008 and stated that Ukraine will someday become a member right now. There's no consensus across the alliance to do so. Yeah, there's clearly not a consensus and I think for good reason because if we brought NAT Ukraine into NATO, we would immediately be in a state of war. Um, one of the things that people like to refer to, um, is is article five.
▶ 0:45:53So, you know, Ambassador or Admiral Montgomery, you said in your testimony that quote, "The US posture in Europe gives NATO's article 5 its teeth." I worry that, you know, that kind of proves my point that that uh it enables the European Union uh member countries to basically rely on America's blanket of security and and underinvest in their own uh and I guess at at some point do you do is your own view that
▶ 0:46:23article 5 would obligate us to fight a war of actually being immediately in a state of war if a NATO member country was Article 5. Well, if there's an article 5 violation determined by the alliance, then I think it's highly likely the United States would participate in that war. And and I and I do think um we are the enabler. There's no doubt our GDP is equal to all of Europe.
▶ 0:46:46So, it's likely that if we were all spending 3, we're currently spending I know the graph said something else, but I think we spend 3.02%. 3.025% to put a specific number on defense. We don't spend that. I mean, I got to be clear here. We're we're barely clear of the numbers we want them to get to. But if we if we're spending that much, we're gonna they're gonna and they spend that much, we will be able to secure ourselves and deter Vladimir Putin from doing things.
▶ 0:47:12My goal is not that we fight Article 5, but we make it clear to Putin that should you attack a treaty ally of ours like the Baltic States or Poland, we will hold you accountable. And therefore, when he sees how strong we and Europe together, and I believe I agree with you completely, Europe needs to carry its load. and Europe was apathetic for 30 years, but they're coming around led by the Eastern Europeans.
▶ 0:47:36And even the president has acknowledged that the Eastern Europeans who are spending four and now soon 5% deserve our support. The president's spoken about the Baltic. It's good. And I I'm glad you acknowledge that Congress actually has the decision on whether we go to war. Uh so Article 5 doesn't automatically trip it.
▶ 0:47:53uh you know my time is uh is is largely expired here but I I just want to point out that you know President Eisenhower thought that if we were in in NATO for 10 years that we would not have succeeded in the mission in NATO. So I think it's uh worth questioning as Vice President Vance did in Munich what are we doing Thank you. And I now recognize the representative from Nevada Titus for five minutes. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:48:28back. Thank you. All right. Just taking a little different tag. We've seen Okay. launch uh information attacks and in European countries u that are in sensitive political context and we've seen it in Georgia, we've seen it in Muldova. Uh it's also extended to NATO countries like Romania and their recent election. And all these attacks are aimed at causing confusion. They deepen political and social divisions.
▶ 0:48:59They destabilize societies. And the ultimate goal is weakening NATO, I believe. Uh so Ambassador Smith, I'll start with you. Can you tell us how NATO is working with allies, partners, and private sector actors to kind of identify, expose, and address and combat this uh foreign disinformation that's coming from Russia? Uh thank you very much, representative, for raising uh Russia's hybrid tactics.
▶ 0:49:26They use a variety of tools to try and divide societies from within and to divide Europeans from each other and Europe from the United States. They fly into NATO airspace. They use disinformation campaigns. There have been incidents of sabotage where suddenly we've seen arson attacks of warehouses full of weapons destined for Ukraine. We've seen undersea cables cut. So this is a standard playbook on the part of the Russians. NATO has increasingly turned to improving and strengthening its toolkit.
▶ 0:49:57We have better cyber security tools. We now exercise and train to test where we would hit that article five threshold under some potential hybrid attack from Russia. We have better surveillance in the Nordic Baltic space looking for incidents where they're about to clip another undersea cable.
▶ 0:50:17So NATO is the place where we can work handinand glove with our European allies to get a stronger and better toolkit to deal with Russian gray zone tactics. I'm glad to hear we're doing those things, but at the same time we're eliminating the global engagement center. Can you address how that might work to our disadvantage?
▶ 0:50:38Well, that's unfortunate because right now in the US government, it seems that this administration is not placing any importance on those types of efforts to combat disinformation stemming from not only Russia, but Iran, from China. These countries work together to share messages, to learn from one another in how they promote these pieces of disinformation.
▶ 0:51:03And the US traditionally has been a leader in helping allies understand how to counter those efforts. But right now with the elimination of the global engagement center, we will likely not be the beating heart of those efforts going forward. I agree with Can I add one thing on that, ma'am? The Trump administration didn't get rid of the global engagement center. Congress did. You allowed it to its authorities to expire last December. That was I agree it's a mistake.
▶ 0:51:31But what the Trump administration has done is gotten rid of the Voice of America and most of the other distribution systems, which is a mistake. Uh that tells the truth about America for uh people to hear. When I lived in the Soviet Union in the early 1980s, Voice of America and Radio for Europe are what you could hear there to hear the American story. So I'm disappointed in the Trump administration for that, but I don't blame them from the Global Engagement Center. You and Congress allowed that to expire in December of last year. I didn't. Don't say I did, but yeah, some some did. You Okay.
▶ 0:52:01Well, you have done a few things, too. Let me ask you this. Shifting over here to uh you, Admiral. Excuse me for saying, General, uh we're fixing to go to the NATO summit in the H. Now, we've got two allies in a part of the world that needs more and more attention. The Eastern Mediterranean. So many things are happening in that area from Israel, Syria, Lebanon, you you name it. We got two NATO allies there. We got Greece and Turkey. Greece is a friend. Turkey is not such a reliable ally.
▶ 0:52:30What's the message we should be sending to Turkey when we go to the H next week? I agree with you and I'm I'm glad we're selling Greece F-35s. I think we should continue to sell Greece significant weaponry as necessary uh so they can do their job securing the uh age and and uh southeastern Europe. Um Turkey needs to get a strong message from us that they should not be eligible for the F-35 until they completely give up the S400.
▶ 0:52:56I'm very concerned that the administration is going to, you know, remove one little part, direct the movement one little part from the S400 and then say Turkey can buy F-35s. That's a mistake. Turkey needs to be held accountable for its bad decision-m on the F on the S400s and on its support for Hamas and and I think that's the strong message that needs to be delivered by the administration in the H and elsewhere. Thank you. I yield back. I now recognize uh the representative, Miss Miss Kim.
▶ 0:53:26Good morning everyone. Thank you chairman self and ranking member Kitting for holding today's hearing and uh thank you for joining us today. I want to ask my first question to uh Mr. Montgomery. You know NATO's ability to deter threats from Russia depends on a robust and responsive defense industrial base.
▶ 0:53:47However, Europe's defense industries face critical vulnerabilities in supply chains, production capacity, and procurement strategies as highlighted by Russia's war against Ukraine. And with some uh NATO allies still falling short of the 2% GDP defense spending pledge that also limits investments in modernization and readiness.
▶ 0:54:11Uh so can you talk about uh the specific steps that uh NATO allies can take to address any vulnerabilities in Europe's defense industry base especially when it comes to critical uh munitions and advanced uh systems uh Yeah, thank you for bringing that up and you're absolutely right.
▶ 0:54:29you know, as we look uh as we sourced um uh Ukraine over the last three years, 95% of the US equ what US provided was US equipment, but more than 50% of what uh of the Western equipment provided by the Europeans was US equipment. They do not have an effective defense industrial base. I also don't believe they can properly conceive of what is needed. It took you, Congress, 40 years to build the current defense industrial base and trillions and trillions of dollars in direct investment.
▶ 0:54:59Uh, and and the Europeans have not made those commitments. And when I hear President Mcronone talk about a European solution to this, the amount of money he discusses is way too low. So the truth is the Europeans are going to need to rely on us for the over the next decade to rearm themselves and they're also going to need to build their own defense industrial base.
▶ 0:55:16some specific ideas as to how United States can uh help uh European allies in overcoming those shortfalls and at the same time we need to ensure the interoperability within our alliance. I think we should take the Ryman the example we have right now with Ryan Mntella German uh artillery firm which is partnered with the United with US firms so that they can scale their production properly.
▶ 0:55:40So what I think is joint ventures between US companies and European companies that build both in the United States for jobs in United States but also in Europe for jobs in Europe with that European money. That is the most logical costefficient way. It's not what the French are proposing but I think long term that's how NATO needs to settle out. Uh next I want to talk about Russia and China. You know in your testimony Mr.
▶ 0:56:04Montgomery, you made it very clear that Russia under Putin is the in quote single greatest threat to peace and democracy in Europe. You also noted the uh role that China has played in helping sustain Russia's war in Ukraine and providing uh dual use technologies and economic support. So we know China is bolstering Russia's defense industry base with micro electronics, telecommunications equipment and drone technology.
▶ 0:56:32So in that context, how should NATO adapt its deterrence and defense strategies so they can address the combined military and technological threats posed by Russia, China partnership? No, you're exactly right. And what I saying there is that Ukraine is actually fighting four countries right now. Russia, China, North Korea, Iran. And I would say most of us think North Korea and Iran are the next biggest problems. They're not. It's China. China's backstopping Russia's economy. They've increased their imports and exports more than 30%.
▶ 0:57:02As you said, they provided the micro electronics that are going to cage one into cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. They're striking Ukraine every night. We absolutely have to hold China accountable uh for its support to is there to specific capabilities or partnerships that NATO should prioritize to counter those threats. Yeah. So I I do believe it's NATO's role in a Asia-Pacific context will be very European in nature, very economic in nature, I'm sorry.
▶ 0:57:29So that we need to do is start working together on how we sanction and export control uh uh China properly and we need to get the Europeans more engaged in that and committed as we are. One more question regarding the NATO and Western uh Balkans. The Western Barkens is a critical region for NATO's efforts to promote stability and counter external influence.
▶ 0:57:51Russia has intensified its efforts to undermine NATO and EU integration in countries like Serbia using disinformation, economic leverage and political interference. So what specific strategy should NATO employ to counter Russia influence in the western Baltics or Balkans and particularly in Serbia as I mentioned and where the uh you know favorable perceptions of Russia are growing especially like I said in Serbia. Well I think you're exactly right.
▶ 0:58:20President Putin has supported both Vhuch in Serbia and Dudik in Republic Serbsky. We need to fully support Kosovo in in its uh efforts to enter the European Union in NATO. But more importantly, we need to ensure that the stabilizing force, NATO's K4 force in Kosovo, is is properly manned and equipped to do its job, provide the warning that's necessary so that Washington can hold Serbia accountable for threats to Kosovo. Thank you very much. My time's up. I yield back.
▶ 0:58:49I now recognize a representative from California, Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For the purpose of my uh five minutes, I want to focus on NATO and and Ukraine. Uh but let me first uh remind ourselves a bit of history. Um, when Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th, 2022, uh, there was strong bipartisan support that this was about good versus evil. Very clear, good versus evil.
▶ 0:59:16Let me quote a a from a speech that President Ronald Reagan gave in 1983. To ignore the facts of history and aggressive impulses of an evil empire is simply to call the arms race a giant misunderstanding. and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil. President Ronald Reagan 1983. I submit to you ladies and gentlemen, members of this subcommittee that this is still about good versus evil. Bottom line. Okay.
▶ 0:59:46So uh when we look at NATO and when we look at the United States post World War II, would you not witnesses sir that uh the United States and whoever has been president of the United States World War II to today has been viewed as the indispensable leader of the free world. Uh Ambassador Smith. Absolutely. Representative, the US has led the alliance since it was created 76 years ago.
▶ 1:00:15It has provided not only the indispensable leader of the free world. Dr. Gardner, would you agree? 100%. The United States is the indispensable leader of the free world. It remains so today. Rear Admiral Montgomery. What would you say? I'd say absolutely and we should we should keep the command of Sakur as part of that indispensable leadership. We're part of the siminal moment in in world history today as we look at what has taken place because Putin has been very clear.
▶ 1:00:41Although the Soviet Union has imploded, he still has visions and dreams of restoring this Russian Empire. Does he not? Would all three of you agree? Yes. I mean, he's been very clear in all of his speeches here. So, Ambassador Smith, uh, yes or no? Do you believe a strong NATO alliance is important to counter the rising and aggressive forces of China? Yes, I do.
▶ 1:01:05Not to suggest that the NATO alliance is going to operate in the Indo-Pacific, but it's deepening partnerships with Japan. China is very carefully watching what we're doing in Ukraine. Would all three of you agree? Yes. Yes. whether or not we're going to maintain our commitment to our allies and to a uh democratic and free Ukraine. Yes. The world is watching. Would you not say? Absolutely. So therefore, this is a siminal moment in American and world history with our NATO allies. Yes. Yes. Agreed.
▶ 1:01:35Um, Admiral Montgomery, um, the probable outcome of the support, and you've been there, I know recently in Ukraine, of the F-16s and other support to ensure that, and of course, we're all amazed, but we shouldn't be because once again, uh, I remember all the intelligence briefings we received prior to Russia's invasion of overexpectations and underexpectations. But the Ukraine Ukrainian brave people are the maggyvers of this of this new type of warfare.
▶ 1:02:05Would you not agree, Admiral McGomery? I do. And and their use of the F-16 has been uh exceptional in the the few months they've been operating them. And what should we be doing to ensure that those aircraft are fully operational and able to achieve their capability? The we we gave them the F-16s, the European countries did without what's called life cycle maintenance. the consumables, the equipment, the training equip the maintenance stuff they need.
▶ 1:02:29We need to fully provide the life cycle maintenance and we need to provide the right weapon systems to be used as a counter drone. And our allies, the the Danish and the the Netherlands have provided the aircraft. We're helping to try to train the pilots, but we need to do more. Is that not correct? That's correct. We need to do the the supply chain, the logistics, and we can just sell it to them. They we don't need to give it to them. We can sell it to them, but we have to provide that life cycle maintenance.
▶ 1:02:53And sir, I have to emphasize we need to give them the uh counter drone rocket systems uh the APKWS that you need to fire from those systems. You wrote a column about this last week. Uh there are very types of systems that the aircraft are lacking that we should provide. What are they? The the rocket system I just mentioned a uh active jamming system. The jamming system is very important for the protection of these these That's right.
▶ 1:03:17We want to make sure that the pilots who are trained in the United States and the aircraft of which they have limited numbers right now as you said for the Netherlands and Denmark and eventually Norway uh are uh survive. They are fighting them exceptionally but they could use more support from us. Let me finally indicate when Secretary Rubio testified before the committee here about a week ago, they talked about maximum maximum pressure on Iran to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons. And by the way, I agree with that.
▶ 1:03:44And I urge the the the secretary, what are we doing to put maximum maximum pressure on Russia to ensure that they understand that we mean the business and we're going to stay with our allies? What should we be doing? We should be sanctioning the shadow the people who are who are helping the shadow fleet evade sanctions. In other words, Chinese, Indian, and Turkish companies that are taking the fossil fuels that are shipped from Russia on their shadow fleet and allow them to circumvent the existing sanctions campaigns.
▶ 1:04:13Neither the Biden administration nor the Trump administration has properly enforced sanctions to allow that to happen. And if we put maximum and maximum pressure, maybe Russia will come to the realization that we mean business potentially. He is Vladimir Putin, so I won't say yes. Thank you. I've extended my time, Mr. Chairman, and I will submit further questions for the record. And I recognize a representative from Florida, Miss Luna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, first and foremost, I'm going to have to disagree with my colleague sentiment as Ukraine as our ally. Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
▶ 1:04:42Um, aside from that, Zalinsky hasn't held actual elections since the war started. So, I don't know what free and fair democracy does that. Um, but aside from that, if we're looking at the US total spending in NATO, it's 3.38% of the defense budget, which is a lot of money. Um, my question, and I'd like to actually point out, we just saw two senators took a vlogging trip to Ukraine yesterday. It was uh Senator Blumenthal and Graham, or I guess it was over the weekend.
▶ 1:05:08Um, but to put simply, their sanctions bill with Graham, it's basically another DC classic. The sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 throws a 500% tariff and banking bad bans at Moscow. But where's the accountability for how billions in prior aid were spent? Biden's admin shoveled millions and billions of dollars into Ukraine with zero oversight, no audits, no results. Now, this bill demands 55 million for monitoring.
▶ 1:05:32While section 17 slaps tariffs on other countries buying Russian oil, which China will bypass through third parties, Trump's America first policies does not write blank checks. It demands verifiable wins. And if Europe is not going to step up militarily, why should US taxpayers fund their security theater? Sanctions without enforced negotiations are just performative politics. You know, I was just with the House Democracy Partnership Institute. We were actually in Belgium. We met with the European Union.
▶ 1:05:58We met with some NATO countries and what I can tell you is you have these countries who are not surrounding Ukraine and they're advocating for war, but you have countries like uh Romania, Russ, uh countries like Malddova that want peace and thoroughly back President Trump's agenda. The reason that I bring that up is because I do believe if we continue funding NATO in our current capacity, we are simply making excuses, not forcing them to take a realistic approach at peace negotiations.
▶ 1:06:25Uh my first question would be to uh Mr. Montgomery if you could just go back and elaborate really quickly on what you had stated in regards to oil. Yeah, the right now the Russians are able to ship their fossil fuels um in in uh avoidance of the existing sanctions which both the Biden and Trump administration have in place by finding third parties. they ship them on illegal shadow ships and third parties and you mentioned them, China, India, Turkey are receiving that.
▶ 1:06:55Um the way you normally stop that is you then sanction the companies receiving that, the ports receiving it and the banks involved in the in the procurement and then those companies back off. And historically we've seen that happen with Iran, with North Korea, with others. So all we have to do is enforce the existing laws, the existing sanctions and we will we will take away um Russia's what is funding Russia's military operations instead of performative politics. Correct. I mean I agree with you.
▶ 1:07:24Well, instead of the Yeah, I I think you can do that regardless of the sanction bill going on in the Senate. Cool. Um, and aside from that, just with that same perspective, do you think that it's a good idea for members of our Senate, members of Congress to go outside of the policy being set forth by the White House and the Secretary of State in regards to policy with Russia and Ukraine currently? Well, I certainly feel it's fair for uh senators and congressmen to go on whatever congressional delegations they want.
▶ 1:07:54I've supported thousands in my career and I and I have no opinion on when Republicans uh you know criticize Democrat administrations or Democrat representatives criticize Republican administrations. It to my military knowledge that appears to be the normal way of doing business. Do you think though that it's dangerous to have people that are advocating for policy that's pro-war when they're first and foremost not the ones on the front lines and also to receive massive contracts from defense contractors or not massive contracts but massive donations and support from defense contractors.
▶ 1:08:23I have I know Senator Graham and I believe he honestly at Senator Graham sir that seems to be a problem um not just in the House but also the Senate not specific to one member both Democrat or Republican. I as a retired military officer I'd never hold a politician accountable for you know expressing his or her views. Sorry. Sorry. I I mean a politician should beow able to express his or her views. Oh no that I mean I I understand that sir. I was just asking simply yesterday but I thank you for your time and obviously not trying to attack you on this. I appreciate you being here today. Thank you, chairman.
▶ 1:08:53I now recognize the representative from Rhode Island, Mr. Anal. Thank you. Uh, thank you to our witnesses for being here. Uh, we know that United States leadership in NATO is essential to our own national security. Uh, we must support our European allies as they take meaningful steps to ensure uh, and increase their own defense spending and capabilities.
▶ 1:09:19and we cannot pull away uh and isolate ourselves as the current Republican administration seeks. Maintaining a strong leadership role in NATO means standing up to the biggest threat facing our European allies, Russia's aggression. But Republicans on this very committee remain silent as Donald Trump scolds our NATO allies, parrots Putin's talking points, and retreats on the global stage.
▶ 1:09:46As Russian attacks are stepping up, Trump is stepping back. He's not lifting a finger to support Ukraine in their fight for freedom, sovereignty, and security. And Russian aggression towards our allies can be seen in their sabotage of essential underwater technologies and infrastructure. At least 11 undersea cables in the Baltic Sea have been damaged since October 2023, including cables disrupting essential energy and internet services to our allies in Finland and Sweden.
▶ 1:10:14Um, Ambassador Smith, could you explain how NATO was countering attacks against uh undersea infrastructure and how can the US support this work and protect our own underwater infrastructure from this sabotage? Uh, thank you representative for raising this particular issue.
▶ 1:10:32Uh the clippings of or cutting of undersea cables is increasingly a topic of conversation across the NATO alliance and allies have increased their surveillance uh particularly in the Baltic Sea. They're sharing more intelligence, sharing best practices and putting together a toolkit that will enable the alliance to fortify itself to these types of hybrid tactics.
▶ 1:10:56This is an area where US leadership is indispensable and if we continue to work through this particular issue through NATO, we'll see a stronger collective alliance response to these types of incidents. Thank you. And you know, this is an example where our adversaries, especially China, are watching NATO's response to Russia's aggression.
▶ 1:11:19our response, our collaboration, our refusal to retreat from this task is a signal uh that I think is incredibly important and you know this is uh you know emblematic of the the the response that we need to have uh in to the increased coordination and cooperation between Russia, China, North Korea and Iran as they you know of course form a significant threat against Ukraine uh and NATO.
▶ 1:11:45And so China's continued investments in critical infrastructure and telecommunication systems in particular across Europe raises alarms about this coordination. And I'd love for you to share a little bit more about how NATO uh can and should counter the the combined threat of coordination between those actors, Russia, China, North Korea and and Iran, especially with the the investment from China in critical telecommunication systems.
▶ 1:12:13Well, this is actually uh a remarkable bipartisan story, and I guess there's not as many of those these days as we would all wish. Uh but in the Trump administration's first term, they pushed the alliance to conduct a China review that put China on the map and got allies talking about what China's doing in and around Europe. The Biden administration grabbed the baton. We were able to get China into NATO's strategic concept, deepen our partnerships in the Indo-acific, and now handed the baton back to the second Trump administration.
▶ 1:12:44My hope is that this administration will continue to run down this path to heighten allies awareness of what China is doing in Europe, whether it's economic coercion, disinformation, or fueling and helping supply Russia's war in Ukraine.
▶ 1:13:02And and I I think it's so important there that you highlighted the the fact that the the sort of current context of the the Trump administration in its questioning of the NATO relationship doesn't have to be and they've already proven that through the types of collaboration and commitment that we saw prior carrying on from administration whether or not it's a Democratic or Republican administration. These are about values of American values that that we share.
▶ 1:13:30The last thing I I'll touch on and I may not uh be able to to get your answer, but I'll try to do so in writing. The point I want to make here is that it's it's really essential that NATO maintain a unified position against the threat of Russia and their new partners. I I have questions about Turkey uh in this moment. And you know, if you could briefly, how should the United States and NATO approach member nations who are maintaining those ties with Russia that imperil the strength of the NATO uh relationship?
▶ 1:14:01Well, Turkey is an important but complicated ally in the alliance. The US needs to work with Turkey where our interests coincide. But in cases where we're at odds, we have to approach them with honesty and work through our differences. Whether it's inside the alliance or in our bilateral relationship or in their relationship with Russia.
▶ 1:14:24I will say on Ukraine in that first year in 2022, Turkey played an important role in trying to bring the parties together. We've recently seen renewed efforts to do so, welcoming both Ukrainians and Russians back to Turkey to hopefully negotiate and hopefully that's the trend line that we see continue. Uh, with that, I yield back. And I represent recognize the representative from Texas, Miss Johnson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:14:54Um, and to our panelists, thank you all so much for being here today. I want to echo our my colleagues and um our witnesses comments that NATO's very existence has averted world wars and made the United States safer. Let me be clear. It's not a waste of resources when we come together as allies to defend one another. As implied by some other members of this committee, the security and prosperity that we have enjoyed since world wars is no accident.
▶ 1:15:21Out of the fog of war, United States helped found this now 80-year-old alliance that guaranteed under article 5 that should any NATO nation come under attack, the other members will consider it as an attack against members all and will take all actions it deems necessary to assist. Article 5 has been invoked once in NATO's history, and that was on September 12th, 2001, one day after al-Qaeda killed almost 3,000 people here in our homeland.
▶ 1:15:51In the following years, our NATO allies came to our aid and a thousand troops died in combat alongside Americans. But now, we have a president who questions that same security assistance we relied on to keep our own nation safe. Just a few weeks ago, he said in the Oval Office, "You know the biggest problem I have with NATO? If the United States was in trouble and we call them, do you think they're going to come and protect us? They're supposed to.
▶ 1:16:19I'm not so sure." I find these comments incredibly reckless and irresponsible and dangerous to our national security in light of the one time when NATO's been activated. It was in our defense. Ambassador Smith, how does this suggestion that NATO allies will not defend each other impact our adversaries perception of credible deterrence? And does this undermine our own security? Well, thank you, Representative.
▶ 1:16:48When the war in Ukraine started, I think both President Xi and China and President Putin and Russia made an assumption, and that was that the NATO allies would grow weary, that they'd grow impatient, that they'd grow distracted, and they wouldn't be able to maintain focus on Ukraine. But we have maintained focus on Ukraine. We remain united. I'm worried that won't continue to be the case. I want to see continued US leadership, which is critical to alliance unity.
▶ 1:17:17And while the Europeans are increasing their defense budgets, it makes perfect sense to remain committed to this alliance. It serves our interests in addition to the interests of our allies. So I firmly believe that the US should maintain its commitment to this alliance and that doing so will send a very strong signal not just to Moscow but to China, Iran, North Korea and other countries around the world.
▶ 1:17:44And it seems to me like the administration is sort of doing the hoke pokey. We're in one day, we're out one day, we're in one day, and we're turning it all about. And that is not the way to have sustained, reliable, persuasive foreign policy in my opinion. Do you agree? Yes, representative.
▶ 1:18:02I will tell you that the day that the Trump administration suddenly without consultation with any of our allies, flipped off and turned off intelligence sharing to Ukraine and all military assistance. It was eventually turned back on.
▶ 1:18:20But that day sent a chill through our European allies, our friends in Canada who were worried that this now signals a new era where at any moment the US can have a sudden shift without any close coordination or cooperation with them.
▶ 1:18:40the the president just sent over a recision bill that will defund remove funding critical funding for the Um I'm curious as to how this panel feels about the US decreasing its financial commitment to the UN and what that would do to our national security Yes.
▶ 1:19:02Uh thank you very much for the uh for the question and um now I fully support efforts to reduce funding for the United Nations because the United Nations is riddled with corruption and inefficiency and frequently acts against US national interests. Uh and I think that the the Trump presidency is pushing for greater accountability from the United Nations. Uh and that is absolutely absolutely right. Uh and so how do you feel about that?
▶ 1:19:29So I I'm uncomfortable with the decision bill um with the UN but more more so with the reduction in USAD funding for um particularly I study the cyber capability and capacity building that we've been doing in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans and I think the cutting of that funding the reduction in that funding will make us it will make it much more difficult for US forces to operate to move in and through these countries as we like to do with our forces.
▶ 1:19:56So, we have to be very careful with these reductions and our overseas assistance. If they have a legitimate national security value, they should be maintained. And when you eliminate 100% of everything, I tend to think you really didn't do a legitimate review. I couldn't agree with you more. Uh, thank you all so much for your testimony. I'm out of time and I yield back. With that, I rec uh recognize a representative from Illinois, Mr. Schneider. Uh, thank you, Mr. chairman and uh thank you for allowing me to join this hearing and and to our our witnesses.
▶ 1:20:25I I appreciate your insights. You all use similar imagery. You talk about NATO as the beating heart, the bedrock, the bullwark. That was very consistent, Ambassador Smith, but you also spoke about a trust deficit. And uh I I'll paraphrase, but many governments are worried that the US commitment to NATO is uh conditional or transactional. Um, are European allies right to worry about the US investor Smith?
▶ 1:20:53Well, I will tell you, having just got back uh from Spain a couple of days ago and having the opportunity to meet with a number of allies across Europe, there is a real concern that the United States right now is unpredictable and that its position both on Ukraine and on the NATO alliance is entirely unclear. They do not like that unpredictability and worry about whether or not US leadership will continue. ask my time back because I I want to cover a lot of things but Dr. Gardner right to worry.
▶ 1:21:21Um if I could respond to that actually and I've met with dozens and dozens of European delegations here in Washington over the past few months and also been to several European capitals uh recently uh and and the message from our European friends is that President Trump uh is actually applying the right kind of pressure on our NATO partners increased defense spending to do more. uh he is really shaking up the transatlantic alliance in a very positive way and I've not I've not heard the negativity that you're covering.
▶ 1:21:52I appreciate that. Uh Rear Admiral Montgomery. So I don't think this has been a a wise maneuver just like I didn't think it was wise to pull out of Afghanistan without informing our NATO allies. I think we have about a 5year streak right now of being too unpredictable and too unfocused on the actual rapacious authoritarians staring us in the face. And if I can uh pick up from there, I I remember the images from BHA.
▶ 1:22:15Uh the bodies in the street, the hands tied behind backs, the faces of ordinary people, men, women, and children massacred in cold blood by Russian troops. Russia's goal was not just to seize territory. It was to extinguish a nation. To remind those still under its power that resistance is fatal, and to warn those who escaped if their safety was not assured. There was no ambiguity ambiguity. It was terror. It was annihilation. and it was specifically staged for the world to see and the world responded.
▶ 1:22:44NATO reinforced its eastern flank. Our allies rose to the moment and for the time I would argue so did we. But I think at this moment the United States is drifting not drifting were actually being led away led away from principle towards paralysis. The president has remained silent on as Russia renews its campaign of drone strikes against civilians. He has not condemned the atrocities. He has not mobilized support. He has not led.
▶ 1:23:10And many in Congress, including some of my colleagues on the other side today, have followed that example. They speak of a Ukraine's cause, but shrink from its defense. They block a delay action and offer platitudes in place of policy. Some have mistaken political convenience for principle. Or they have lost both. We are once again at a point of strategic and moral clarity. Ukraine is not asking for our troops. It is asking for our resolve. NATO is not demanding es escalation.
▶ 1:23:40It's asking for consistency. Each day that the United States hesitates, NATO's deterrence is tested. And not only in Kev, but in Warsaw, Talon, and be and beyond. And if Ukraine chooses to pursue NATO membership, as we promised in 2008, as na as Ukraine is part of an agreement to relinquish its nuclear weapons, is part of the family of nations, there has to be a clear and credible and credible path forward for Ukraine, who has made sacrifice,
▶ 1:24:11who has bravely fought the Russians. We need to honor our commitments and admit that door to NATO remains open to free nations, not just Ukraine, but free na nations who meet its obligations and share its values. So my my question uh I I'll turn to Ambassador uh Smith again. Um BUA was a moment of of clarity. The president has been silent on BUA. Uh been silent on the renewed campaign, Russia's renewed campaign of drone strikes against civilians.
▶ 1:24:40He told Zalinsky that he had no cards to play in the Oval Office. I can only imagine what Zillinsky was thinking knowing that there were plenty of cards left to play as we saw this weekend. What does the president's silence communicate to our NATO allies and to Moscow in particular? It has led to uncertainty about whether or not the US is cleareyed here about who is the aggressor and who is the victim.
▶ 1:25:04The US needs to state repeatedly that Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is the victim. We must apply more pressure on Russia to move towards peace. But we also have to ensure that Ukrainians don't have any limits on the size of their forces or whether or not they can build a future force so that this doesn't happen again. Thank you. I'm over time.
▶ 1:25:28has been noted here, NATO came to the United States aid under article 5 after we were attacked on September 11th. NATO has led the way in sec in ensuring that Ukraine is able to defend itself against aggression from Russia. There is no dispute. There should be no question. We have to be clear that that was the case. Uh I appreciate the witness's testimony and I yield back. I now recognize the uh representative from Delaware, Mr.
▶ 1:25:55Chairman, uh, I request 30 seconds to make a unanimous statement. Uh, you're recognized, Mr. Keaton. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last hearing, you referred to Representative McBride as representative, and I can't fathom how you uh just can't continue to do that. In any case, it's obvious to me that Representative McBride uh wants to focus on the job she was elected to do.
▶ 1:26:23So going forward, every time you do this, she'll demonstrate who she is and you'll demonstrate who you are. With that, let us focus back on the hearing. Thank you, Ranking Member Keading. Um, I am indeed here to talk about strengthening our national security by bolstering our NATO alliance because democracy is under attack both in the US and around the world.
▶ 1:26:48NATO grounded in shared cultural values with our transatlantic allies plays a vital role in defending democracy and sustaining the US-led democratic world order that protects our freedoms every single day. NATO has been a defender of democracy both at home and in Europe for over 75 years, fostering both one of the longest periods of peace between great powers in human history and the greatest expansion of freedom and individual liberty ever.
▶ 1:27:15On the global stage, this administration is attacking our NATO allies, Denmark and Canada, cancelling foreign aid without notice, and defending Putin's illegal war in Ukraine. Most dangerously, this administration is undermining Article 5 in explicit ways. But the threat to NATO and to the security it has fostered is even more insidious than just that. Here at home, we are seeing a democratic backsliding and dangerous illiberalism take hold.
▶ 1:27:42When due process is infringed upon and the First Amendment is trampled upon, we are not simply violating domestic norms and constitutional freedoms. We're communicating to Vladimir Putin that we no longer cherished the shared values that underpin our commitment to NATO. We communicate we aren't willing to defend democracy here at home and in so doing that we're not willing to defend it overseas. That democracy and individual liberty are not principles that we will fight for.
▶ 1:28:12And this is part and parcel of a broader global project aimed at dismantling democratic institutions and shifting toward authoritarianism. NATO is and has been a crucial alliance for our shared national security goals and our shared values. And I intend to work with this committee with serious members on this committee to ensure that we remain a leader and supporter of NATO's mission.
▶ 1:28:34So my question for you, Ambassador Smith, as someone who's represented the US in Europe, I'm curious what long-term strategic consequences could arise if the perception takes hold globally that the United States is retreating from our democratic values, and how could that impact NATO's unity, its mission, and its effectiveness? Uh well, thank you very much, Representative, uh for that question.
▶ 1:28:57Um, look, the NATO alliance is rooted fundamentally in our shared values and our shared values starts and ends with a commitment to democracy, to the rule of law, to human rights, uh, etc.
▶ 1:29:13And so if we have a situation where certain allies are starting to question America's fundamental commitment to those democratic values, the foundation of the alliance simply won't hold. So the United States needs to not only continue to ensure that it leads this alliance as it has done for now 76 years, but it has to be the beacon on those democratic values.
▶ 1:29:42Without it, the NATO project again simply doesn't work and it would be ultimately a win for China, for Russia, for Iran, for North Korea and others to see the collapse of those shared values. So the US has a key role in maintaining them. So I I I want to build off of of that point, Ambassador, specifically around the message it sends to China and Russia.
▶ 1:30:07Um you know, I touched on in my opening comments how um a receding of democratic norms and values and rights here in the United States could communicate to Vladimir Putin that we are less committed to the values that underpin NATO. So I I I'd love to hear your perspective on how that illiberalism here, how that democratic backsliding here could potentially embolden Vladimir Putin.
▶ 1:30:30Well, we can't do anything, Representative to signal to Moscow that we are backsliding on any of those core values and we have to ensure that America's commitment to the alliance is ironclad. It is there, NATO is there to defend our shared values. We do not want to give Russia any impression that we're backing away from that commitment.
▶ 1:30:53And then f finally, you know, in terms of NATO's unity, I I I'd love to to hear a little bit more from you, Ambassador, about the public attacks by US leaders on long-standing NATO allies and and how that's impacting or potentially could impact cohesion and mutual trust within NATO. Well, look, uh we have been in this alliance for 76 years and we argue all the time.
▶ 1:31:16I'm here to tell you as the US ambassador, I spent each and every week having debates, fierce debates, sometimes shouting debates with our closest allies. That's the way it goes in the alliance. It's like a family. Everyone feels comfortable arguing. But what you don't want to do is let those fierce debates internally boil over and give leaders around the world, autocrats, the feeling that NATO unity is cracking. You have to take those arguments headon, but work towards unity.
▶ 1:31:45And what I want to see is this administration reassuming and taking on that leadership role in the alliance, calling out Russia for its aggression and indiscriminate attacks on civilians inside Ukraine and putting maximum pressure not just on Iran, but maximum pressure on the Russians. Thank you. I'm over time. I yield back. Uh the ranking member has agreed that we will have a second round. So I recognize myself for five minutes and I'll start out.
▶ 1:32:13I've got a popery of questions here, but Dr. Gardner, you responded uh to that last and I thought you wanted to give a response to one of those last questions. If you'll take a few seconds. Yes, thank you very much uh Mr. chairman and I would like to respond to the uh to the remarks made by Representative McBride because uh I think the uh the comments there were absolutely ridiculous and the attack on the United States as as
▶ 1:32:43a nation supposedly backsliding on democracy bears no relation whatsoever to to reality. Uh and uh I'm I'm proud to live in the freest nation on earth and the United States fights every day for freedom and democracy across the world. Uh and I find it absolutely astonishing that a member of Congress would compare the United States to Putin's Russia and uh the United States is today the beacon of democracy and freedom in the world.
▶ 1:33:12And we see that on a daily basis and I just want to mention on on the record that I find it absolutely appalling that a a member of member of Congress makes astonishing attacks on the United States full of lies. uh that that carries no relation whatsoever to to reality.
▶ 1:33:31American leadership is incredibly powerful on the world stage right now and the United States is leading the NATO alliance based upon the principles of freedom and democracy and individual liberty. We're seeing that uh and and we should be proud of that record uh instead of trying to to tear America uh down as the as the left uh does all the time. We should be proud of everything this great nation stands for.
▶ 1:33:57Uh and that that includes at its very heart uh the the freedom and liberty that that the foundations of this great nation. Thank you. Thank you. And uh to get back to some of the details, I'd like your opinion, Dr. Gardner, of the arrest warrant for DODIC and it the potential impact on the Western Balkans and their refusal to uh to carry through with that arrest warrant.
▶ 1:34:21Yeah, actually on that on that particular issue, I'm going to uh defer to my colleague uh Miss Montgomery, who I think has a has a more detailed understanding of that that particular issue. Thank you. I do think it's a Thank you. Now, the uh I'll tell you I'm uh I'm not optimistic that the arrest warrant will be executed. Um I am confident that Dudik is a criminal and should be held accountable.
▶ 1:34:45And I'm afraid I think I share your kind of implied concern in previous questions that the Balkans are a tinder box and that the our inability to hold Vhuch and Dudik accountable is eventually going to lead to an inflammation and uh and a and a deeper requirement for for European and potentially even America, United States to get involved. So I wish it would be executed properly. I suspect it won't, sir. Okay, very good.
▶ 1:35:13Now we had a very short conversation about the Sulki gap. That is to my in my mind the second most important issue facing NATO. So would you give us a tutorial on the Sulki gap and the Kolinenrad enclave and what that enclave represents to Russia? Well, as a retired army officer, I'm not surprised you bring that up, but the uh I agree with you completely.
▶ 1:35:36The Sulvaki G gap is a narrow throat that Russia would like to grab in order to bring itself with a greater Russia with um Bellarus in contact with the Kenrad Oblast which is the most heavily fortified geographic position in the world. the despite the war in Ukraine, the Russians have not backed off one iota from packing weapon systems into there that hold Poland and the Baltic states at risk.
▶ 1:36:07The ability to close that I think 60 kilometer gap would be very rapid in war. But you know, I believe the Russians can do that and certainly with what they've learned in Ukraine, they will be able to do that. So I share your concern about the Sulvaki gap. This is one of those issues where na Europe and NATO need to be thinking very hard about how you persistently deter Russia from being able to do that. I do not think you can get the weapon systems there five, six, seven days after the fact. It will be lost by then.
▶ 1:36:35And the bulk the Baltic states and Poland share your concern. And my last point in my last 30 seconds is FMS reform. Uh we have we have a great need to reform FMS. And I'll just make that point on the record. Uh we have uh still billions of dollars behind in in weapon systems that Taiwan has already paid for. Uh Saudi Arabia stands in front of Taiwan for the harpoon missiles having paid for the restart.
▶ 1:37:03So it's something we cannot take our eye off the ball. Ambassador, you mentioned the defense industrial base. Uh FMS reform I think is vital for the future of everything that we've been talking about. With that, I yield my time and I recognize Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:37:21Uh there's there's a lot of uh misinformation I believe that that's going around the US uh and around the world regarding the commitment of uh our NATO allies, our European allies, in fact, the 50 country allies uh that all are working uh to as one uh to defeat Russian aggression in Ukraine. So, I'd like Ambassador Smith, could you take some time and and straighten the record out here?
▶ 1:37:49I mean, the the contribution from Europe is extraordinary. So, if you could take some time and and correct some of those misconceptions. Uh, yes, thank you very much. Um, there are some folks out there that believe that the US has been supporting Ukraine over these last three and a half years largely in isolation. And that's simply not the case. Our European allies have given an enormous amount of support to Ukraine. They've housed millions of refugees.
▶ 1:38:20They've provided critical economic and humanitarian support. But they have sent weapons. Some countries have sent them everything they had. The Baltics, the Poles, a country like Romania that sent essentially all of its air defense. These contributions have been critical to what Ukraine has been able to do to defend its territory against Russian aggression. So, I completely appreciate your point.
▶ 1:38:44I think it's important for folks to understand that this has been an effort not just with our European allies, but with 50 countries around the world. Secretary Austin, when he was Secretary of Defense, regularly convene 50 countries from around the world, including friends in the Indo-acific to each month send more critical support to our friends in Ukraine.
▶ 1:39:08One of those meetings is happening today and the US Secretary of Defense will not be attending the UDCG, the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. That is a shame in my mind. It's a group that requires US leadership at the highest levels and the United States started this group and it needs to continue to lead it.
▶ 1:39:32Yeah, the the contact group uh is essential and in fact it's a way the US is leveraging uh you know their assets uh around the world too. Uh and so uh I I think it's critical in that regard.
▶ 1:39:47Uh I also uh wanted to just touch base the Russian elections that occurred uh in in uh where they voted to have legitimate control uh over areas of Ukraine in violation of every international law uh that you could think of. Uh how would you categorize those elections? Well, it's a it's a pretty short answer.
▶ 1:40:15uh representative, it was a sham and we cannot allow this to stand. We, in my mind, we cannot allow Russia to come in and make these assumptions and claims that the Zalinski uh administration is somehow a Nazi regime, that this territory uh that they're currently occupying belongs to Russia, that they have a right to own Crimea.
▶ 1:40:42None of this uh adheres to Ukraine's very clear territorial integrity and sovereignty and we have to continue to stand up and push back against those types of Russian assertions. Speaking of elections, uh in World War II uh with martial law declared in UK, they did not have elections, did they not? Correct. And as someone familiar with the Ukraine constitution, right? Right.
▶ 1:41:09under martial law they are not holding martial law was called because of the Russian aggression because of the war. Correct. Their constitution would not allow that even if they wanted to have that. Is that is that correct? Indeed. Admiral Montgomery I I don't think we spent enough time talking about uh Putin and who he really is. You mentioned that in some of your remarks and we were looking at uh this negotiation that's going on which is you know negotiation is always a good thing. Talking is always a good thing.
▶ 1:41:39But how would you categorize Putin's uh response uh to to these negotiations? Yeah, the the offer at Estan Bowl last week was an insult to President Trump. I mean, President Trump has told President Putin several times, come to the table with a serious deal and he's told him, "Stop doing the, you know, Vladimir, stop doing the bombing." I thought there was a potential this time there would be a reasonable response, but instead it was a, you know, just a laundry list of every illegitimate Russian claim to eur uh
▶ 1:42:09to Ukraine and and every ridiculous request that they basically de neuter themselves, demilitarize, and take no western support. It was it was an absolute insult to President Trump who has given President Putin more than enough time to come to the right answer. Great. I my time is expired. I yield back. And now rep uh recognize the representative from Nevada, Miss Titus.
▶ 1:42:40The Trump administration was not the one that eliminated the global engagement center, but rather you pointing in this direction. I said it wasn't me, but you meant Congress simply allowed it to expire. Now, the White House Republicans did indeed refuse to include the extension of the sunset in the FY National Defense Authorization Act and based on some since debunked conspiracy theories.
▶ 1:43:07But the Biden administration tried to keep their work going by putting this mandate in the State Department's counter foreign information manipulation and interference office, the RFIMI. Now, unfortunately, then on April the 16th, Secretary Rubio announced the closure of that office as a way to, and I quote, champion free speech.
▶ 1:43:31Now, since you asserted that Congress failed in its decision to not reauthorize the GEC, do you also believe that the Trump administration failed in its decision to close the RFI? So, um, and I know your staff will go do more research and you'll read that I've written three articles condemning the closure of the Global Engagement Center and President Trump's closure of this. I'm I absolutely believe we need to counter disinformation.
▶ 1:43:57Um, the closure of the Department of Justice, Department of the Federal Bureau of Inig, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security's disinformation shops was equally reckless by this administration. So, I absolutely think that we should be looking for disinformation. Russia and China are aggressively conducting cyber enabled economic warfare and influence operations campaigns against this country.
▶ 1:44:21The one final thing I'll say is the most deltorious worst information operations campaign going on in this country is the use of Tik Tok. Tik Tok, you and Congress properly banned it last year. President Biden signed it into law. Tik Tok is being used by China to change the social narrative in our country to convince the 180 million 18 to 35 year olds who use it that the United States is not a great country that China is that China's suppression of Weaguers is okay.
▶ 1:44:52That China suppression of Taiwan is okay. That the UK Russian invasion of Ukraine is okay. And that Hamas's uh terrorist act against Israel is okay. Tik Tok needs to be banned. To me, that's the worst disinformation operation. But I agree with you completely that we need a global something like the global engagement center. I've argued for it for about two and a half years now. I was just pointing out that the actual problem was Congress failing to reauthorize it. Thank you.
▶ 1:45:18I just wanted the record to clearly show who all was responsible and what the whole context in the story was. And if I if you weren't answering it the way I had hoped you would, I'd take offense that you think my staff has to do my research, but you can write your own books. But thank you for that answer. I now recognize the representative from Illinois, Mr. Schneider. Uh, thank you, Chairman Self. And, uh, before I do ask my question, uh, Dr. Gardner, I have to tell you, I take great offense.
▶ 1:45:46Your respectful people, honorable people can disagree on policy. To question Democrats commitment and patriotism is is unacceptable. I love my country and I know my colleagues do. I am committed to the country like Rear Admiral Montgomery, Ambassador Smith, our colleagues here, we take a note to defend the Constitution and we do that with seriousness and uh integrity. So I take great offense. Um we live in a great country. We are beacon to the world.
▶ 1:46:14I am the father of of a Navy Navy veteran like Admiral Montgomery. He was a surface warfare officer. And uh we can disagree. We don't need to um dismiss each other's commitment to our country. Uh, Admiral, Rear Admiral Montgomery, in your opening remarks, you stated, I'm going to quote you here. I firmly believe that NATO can serve as a ballpark that brings transatlantic alliance through the challenges posed by a rapacious authoritarian state.
▶ 1:46:41Russia and the Chinaled access of aggressors that supports and enables Russia. I think we agree on that. My question for you is it can or is it must? Must NATO be at that forefront? Yeah, in my written I said can and in my oral I said must because I believe it's must. I mean look there is no substitute for us that I agree with with Nile and his uh characterization of French President Mcronone's initiatives here. They're going to go nowhere. Um it needs to be us.
▶ 1:47:11It needs to be NATO. Um myself uh chairman self others have served with NATO over 40 50 years. It makes we are the bull work of democracy in Europe and we are the only thing that is strong enough to defeat them together. Europe has to spend more. We have to spend more. We're we're going to go below 3% in real GD defense spending and GDP, not the numbers that we get from some disarmament agency in in uh in Scandinavia.
▶ 1:47:38We're going to go below 3% um over the next two to three years. We need to get ours up. They need to get theirs up. It's the only way we can defend ourselves. And I I I think it was Ambassador Smith, you talked about it. We need to do that in a coordinated way. We need to have a strategy and a strategy follows a vision of the role of NATO, what role it it plays today but also into the future. What do you see as the the role for NATO uh looking to the future?
▶ 1:48:05Well, I would like to see Russia I mean I would like to see the alliance complete that strategy on Russia. I think existing in a world where the allies can't agree on a Russia strategy doesn't bode well for the future and this huge surge in spending. But from a more technical perspective, I think NATO can help drive co-production. We've heard a couple of great examples today.
▶ 1:48:28I often point to the case of Spain, Romania, Germany, and the Netherlands coming together with Rathon to build the GMT missiles for the Patriots. Those types of co-production efforts are the way of the future and NATO can help that happen but not if the alliance is hemorrhaging trust and Europeans feel like they want to back away from us. So the US has to recommmit.
▶ 1:48:53This summit is going to be very important in terms of the signals the Trump administration is going to send and it should in my mind allow the alliance to move forward both with the Russia strategy and allow it to push forward on those joint ventures that I just mentioned. I I I couldn't agree more. You answered actually my follow-up question which is um that US role.
▶ 1:49:15uh what is the impact of messages coming from the administration the the going one way on Monday and a different way on Tuesday and a complete reversal on Wednesday what's the impact of getting to the strategy and the vision we need to achieve and let me give you uh just one example of where we are with public attitudes in Europe in Denmark they have created this app on your phone so that you can go through the store and find US products so that you can avoid them that's where we are right Now I
▶ 1:49:45attended I attended a wedding in Canada last weekend uh weekend before last and it's not good. It's not good. We went in to buy a bottle of wine. There is no American alcohol in the liquor stores and we're seeing that. Uh R Ad Montgomery, I want to give you the last word here. Uh what is the impact of the inconsistency from the US if we're going to achieve the strategy you talk about if NATO must lead the way? Look, as a as a military planner, I ran our plans in eur US European Command and our operations in US Pacific Command during my career.
▶ 1:50:15And the one thing that any military planner operator wants is consistency. We need to have consistent, stable resources, uh, operational plans and direction from senior leadership. In the end, the president makes the direction and we need to flex to it, but consistency is always, uh, a preferred condition. Thank you. And with that, I yield back. Uh, I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony, the members for their questions. The members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the witnesses.
▶ 1:50:45I will ask you to respond to those in writing. I will certainly have one. Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record subject to the length of limitations. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
▶ 1:51:16You remember me talked a long time ago. Great job. Thank you very much. Pleasure.
▶ 1:51:44Very nice to see you and enjoy all of your tradition. She showed no respect. No respect. That's a separate