tv Army Modernization and Russian Military Strategy in Europe CSPAN July 19, 2017 1:56pm-2:39pm EDT
the even now has bio starts with the banking committee. but he also serves on the intelligence and banking committees and new jersey economic subcommittee on the banking committee. he grew up in yell county and arkansas and attended both harvard and harvard law school. we will try hard not to hold that against you. deserve vick clerkship in the court of appeals and are practicing law but after september 11th he decided to change his career path and join the united states army, served five years as an entrance to the
officer. a really awe-inspiring number of words and declarations including the bronze star, infantry badge and the ranger tab. after leaving the army spent a short amount of time and consulting work for mckinsey ran and the house of representatives and did such a good job and was chosen by the citizens of, and we really appreciate you joining us this morning. the floor is yours. [applause] >> thank you fair match. andrew, thank you for the kind introduction. the strategic and international studies for hosting us. the russian threat in europe, i also want to express greatly what i know is everyone best wishes for beauty recovery to my friend, john mccain.
i was a struggle it is any of you to learn about his hasty surgery over the weekend, but also as grateful as any of you to hear about the condition of full recovery. in the meantime this means i'm going to have to start raising twice as much in as they normally do to make up for john mccain's absence. perhaps expressing best wishes for senator mccain is that rush at all. after all, you never overlooked a threat the russia poses to the west. western politicians for the last 17 years, senator mccain clearly saw mckay, g, b. and vladimir putin's eyes. which is a serious mistake to think that the cold war was generous. yes, the soviet union layered and aggressive global ideology over the old russia problem. the problem remains with us today as it always will be.
it is far from a coincidence i would suggest that an old kgb officer took power in russia a less than decade after the soviet empire. therefore, the history of the soviet era and u.s.-russian relations remains vitally today. approaching a 30 year anniversary of a very important moment. eradication from the treaty. 30 years on and still a remarkable achievement and president reagan. not merely imposing numerical limit on systems, but eliminated an entire class of weapons, namely a range of 500 to 5500 commenters. they impose unusually high risks that are stockpiled and move rapidly, making it difficult to
monitor and in just a few minutes to contrast the intercontinental missiles. so it's deeply provocative when they deployed such missiles into eastern europe in the late 1970s. nato had no choice but to respond. president carter began the planning steps of president reagan carried them out by american adult missiles in 1983. a decision i should add that was protested widely in the united state in europe. protest them are in no small part by the kgb. for the next four years, the two sides jockey at the negotiating table until it finally reached an agreement. today, vladimir putin and russian strategic thinkers remain ambivalent.
after all, we don't worry about missile threats from canada or mexico in the deployment of intermediate-range missiles to cuba would plainly bridge the understanding reach after the cuban missile crisis that the united states will not accept west end stationed on the island. .. countries on the eurasian perimeter and here i speak in particular china, have
complete freedom todeploy intermediate range missiles . moreover, the lack of these missiles in russia's arsenal decries russia as a potent tool to gain leverage in its near bride as it always seeks to do. vladimir putin has resolved this ambivalence in a single way: cheating on the inf treaty.by state department accounts, rush has been testing a new cruise missile that can strike western europe and at least nine years. the obama administration repeatedly warned the kremlin to cease-and-desist. the state department formally declared russia in violation of the treaty in 2014 and every year thereafter. yet they never followed up in any meaningful way. so it's no surprise that according to media reports, russia has the two battalions
of road mobile, intermediate range cruise missiles. vladimir putin is therefore eating his cake and getting to have two. russia remains secure and the european theater by the absence of us cruise missiles while putin has developed a new missile that counteracts china, threatens the small countries on his periphery and divides nato politically. the truth is though, this is nothing new for russia. whether any soviet era or the putin era. the russians take a hard view of the treaties baseline, does the treaty serve their interests? if it does, they might abide by it. it doesn't, then they don't. the soviets signed the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 1972, for instance, because it served their
interest. us technology was more advanced than if we developed an advanced missile system, their nuclear deterrence would deter that much. but that didn't stop the russians from pushing their luck. for years, they maintain a large phased array radar that plainly violated the treaty. the us protested, still, the soviet union finally agreed to dismantle that radar. seven years after we first detected it. from their perspective, the treaty and his violation was a bargaining chip. the russians, any treaty is just another point of leverage, especially against nato. it is not an inviolable commitment. i would suggest it's time we look at the inf treaty in the same way. beyond what our commitments are, we should ask ourselves what should they be. what set of commitments will protect our national security and how should we adapt our current commitments to our
current needs. for the time being, it's probably best to try to preserve the imf treaty but only if russia comes back into compliance promptly and verifiably. but the only way to say the treaty is to show the russians that we will walk away from it if they don't come back and comply. it is very simple, he gained more than he loses by violating the treaty. so we should reverse that calculus by making it more consequential for the russians to violate the treaty then to uphold its commitments. that's why i've introduced the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty preservation act which would direct the pentagon to take for immediate steps to apply pressure to russia. first, develop a new
intermediate range cruise missile backed up with $100 million in investments. under thetreaty we cannot test , produce or possess land-based intermediate range missiles but we can conduct research on how to improve other missiles such as extending the range or adapting them to different environments. for instance, we can develop a land-based version of the tomahawk, we usually launch from navy ships. this kind of research days well within the four corners of the inf treaty but also prepares us and our allies in case thetreaty becomes obsolete . i'm pleased to say that the national defense authorization act recently voted in the armed services committee includes $65 million for this program.i understand that some of my democratic colleagues tend to offer an amendment to remove this provision. i welcome actually, and
relish this debate on the senate floor. we will see how many of the democrats have discovered their inner cold warrior in the last six months or are willing to put their money where their mouth is. second, authorized 500 million in funding for developing new defense capabilities. to put it bluntly, if russia is going to develop a new missile then we should develop new ways to shoot it down. it would neutralize the advantage russia seats by violating the inf treaty. for instance, we could speed up our deployment of c and land-based missile defense sites . third, to facilitate the transfer of cruise missile technology to our allies, as i've noted, only the united states and russia signed this treaty, no othercountry did. so even if we can build intermediate range missiles,
that doesn't mean our allies cannot . and it also doesn't mean that we cannot help them. forinstance, the polish government has been acquiring air launched cruise missiles for some time . they suspect warsaw might be interested in ground launched cruise missiles as well. which i further suspect might make the kremlin less keen on ripping up the inf treaty. finally, we would prevent russia a very simple choice. either observe the inf treaty or we won't renew our commitment to other treaties. specifically, the legislation would prohibit further funding for twotreaties that russia wants to preserve . first is an extension of the new start treaty which poses greater limits on our strategic nuclear forces that on russians. the second is the open skies treaty which russia needs more core overhead imagery intelligence than we do.
the russians will keep their inf commitments, why should the united states continue other treaties that benefit them . these proposals are sensible steps consistent with our treaty obligations and the measure of responses to russian provocations. for we must remember, russia's violation of the eye and at treaty are isolated but rather part of a pattern of provocative behavior, whether it's annexing crimea, meddling in our elections or assaulting our diplomats in moscow or harboring edward snowden, buzzing american ships with aircraft or giving aid to the town man, providing the missiles that were used years ago today issued a civilian aircraft out of the sky. russia is deliberately probing our defenses around the globe, looking for weak spots. is why every provocation must be met with a firm and
unyielding response. put simply, we remain the strategic competition with russia and intermediate range missiles are just one part of the central element of that competition. and military modernization. russia has engaged in a brightness breakneck pace of military modernization and it's essential that we modernize our military we hope to maintain overmatched against russia. perhaps you've heard our army generals say nato is outgunned and out ranged in europe. what they're talking about are the very weapons systems that are banned by the inf treaty so even if we do remain in the treaty, we urgently need to modernize our military and especially the army which would do the brunt of any fighting in europe. this is why the report being released by csi today is so important and why i encourage everyone to read it carefully . of course, we also have to
remember that we are in strategic competition with countries besides russia. the inf treaty was a landmark agreement 30 years ago. the world we now have is very different from that world. for one thing, it's not a to power world anymore. when reagan and gorbachev shook hands over the treaty, china was beginning its free-market reforms, iran was locked in a war of attrition, iraqi , indie india or pakistan was a nuclear power, just years before, hard as it may be to believe, north korea had signed a nuclear nonproliferation treaty. thus, the time is coming to consider whether the united states should stay in the inf treaty even if russia came back into compliance. as i've noted, no other country is a party to the treaty. as a result, our troops and
allies in the asian-pacific face and increasingly aggressive china with more than 90 percent of itsmissile forces pulling into the intermediate range . yet pacific command and our allies like a single ground-based idiot intermediate range missile and hold mainland china at risk. this question can be left to another day but the united states cannot afford to take a one-dimensional view of old trees because of threats we face are no longer one-dimensional. what we cannot afford is to stand by like shops while vladimir putin cheapens the inf treaty openly and notoriously. russia as it always does is marshaling strategic advantage against the united states through a series of incremental provocations, calculated to operate just below the threshold of retaliation. deploying an intermediate range cruise missile is
perhaps the most provocative step as yet because it would eventually allow russia to hold all our bases, all our troops, all our allies in eurasia risk. the time has come to put an end to this. we cannot impel the bear to return to his then, we can at least lay traps in his path around the world. thank you all. [applause] >> thank you senator, that was a great way to kick us off. i thought i'd start with a couple questions and open it up to the audience from there. i thought it was really just, first of all asking because the trump administration has a nuclear policy and a missile defense policy review going on, why shouldn't congress sit back and kind of
wait until that's all done before moving forward with this legislation? >> i think what you find in that review is going to be similar to the proposals in our underlying legislation as well as house armed services committee concluded in their versions of the national defense authorization act. second, these ideas do not come lightly. this is the validated requirement that comes from planners in the department of defense and third, these views are important. they are valid. but we are six months on and congress needs to take his proper constitutional role in addressing some of the real challenges that we face from threats around the world let me stick with the executive congressional relationship for a moment. last week the white house issued a statement of administration policy with respect to the house and the aa and in terms of the inf treaty preservation act,
provisions were mirrored in a couple ways including with respect to the material breach declaration and also in terms of a record which you spoke about. surprisingly enough the white house administration policy posts and i wonder if you might that. i think that's going to stick , how do you account for that and you think the administration opposition is likely to last? >> in ministration policy was crafted by obama era bureaucrats at the state department. i cannot imagine that when we pass this legislation, the president will oppose it, hr mcmaster would recommend that he veto it. i suspect that once secretary to listen and secretary mattis recognize the widespread support, they will project a recommendation of those obama era bureaucrats. the program of record versus r&d is really just talking about how defense planners can end and the material breach is short of calling
russia complete abrogation of the treaty, is an effort to bring russia back into compliance with the treaty so i suspect wiser and tougher heads will prevail . >> let me ask one more question and open it up, you highlighted kind of a big question of russian politics and that kind of thing is getting so much attention. >> and earlier this year, you asked in an open set intelligence committee hearing, you asked the director of the cia if there was some reason to believe that russia was using active measures or appropriate influence to weigh in on our discussions here at home about nuclear modernization on missile defense and i'm curious, what was the impetus for that question and is there some reason to believe that russia is involved in that discussion just as they been involved in so many others? >> you heard the parable of the scorpion and the frog . the scorpion asked the frog to take it across the river, you'll see me if i you and the scorpions is why when i do that lesson?
we across the river the scorpion stings the frog in the francaise why do yousing me , and the scorpion said because it's in my nature. it's in russia's nature to use deception, manipulation, submersion and subterfuge, bob bases first memoir from the shadows he writes at length about the kgb's efforts to manipulate western public opinion in europe and the united states about the very deployments of these intermediate range cruise missiles in 1983. there was soviet money behind the mass protests you saw in the united states and western europe at the time. i know of no reason to believe that russia is not doing the exact same thing right now to stop the modernization of our nuclear triad or stop theflood of advanced weapons dozens . that's simply what russia does. russia is a country that now have a dvd barely less-than-perfect 10 percent of america's. the ddd falls on the site california, and in new york. smaller than italy.
>> smaller than the combined gdp of the five nordic countries, they have to find ways to achieve an advantage that is not based on marshaling bath resources and what they call active measure campaigns, what we would call propaganda or covert influences one of the way russia is weathering the soviet era to achieve that advantage by holding western opinion and dividing nato countries. >> what we open up to the floor and thank you since this is not our injuries yet she started. >>. >> for the folks, just wait for the microphone and identify yourself and ask it in the form of a question. >> thank you for those remarks and you obviously illustrated in your speech and made reference also to our leadership comments about the army being arranged, outgunned in europe and increasingly so >> . >> of your senate armed
i had to dispute the premise of the question the trump administration is anything but tougher on russia when it comes to the real world. >> i see a in front here. >> . hello, i set up the process and laid out the options which-- [inaudible] >> later on in 98 i got to visit a former base. by the way there were no assessed 20s deployed in east europe. they were deployed across the soviet union and i got to kick the tires of the replacement, the ss 25 at the former ss 20 base. think i was only the us, not
europe. i also studied lots of russian ballistic missile programs and of course this cruise missile is to be mounted on the east god transmitter and i never found any evidence that it was nuclear. do you know that this cruise missile is nuclear? >> in fact, i found opposite views on the utility of nuclear weapons. >> i don't want to comment on the intelligence about this particular weapon system. it's been widely reported in the western media. i will say, however, the nature of intermediate range missiles is not limited to need to their missiles and that's also the case that any other kind of warhead could be inherently destabilizing europe as well and that's why russia in its soviet
form wanted to eliminate the entire class of weapons, not just simply limit the number of the weapons. >> who else? i saw a few more up. to more over here in the front row. >> hello. do you think you could speak generally on your opinion on the army's current modernization efforts and if you think they have the focus moving forward or is there something you think they should focus more on imac they need to move faster and be more clear about the priorities. some of those priorities as i mentioned are currently printed by treaty obligation, but we need prepared to move quickly should the treaty become obsolete and in the meantime do anything we can with in the context of our operations internationally to increase the
legality and survivability of our systems whether that's active armor system or increasing the size of cannons or what have you. in addition, we need to expand the end of strengthen our military and our army, in particular. >> thank you. you spoke of assisting us allies with the developing weapons the ins prohibits the us from doing. wouldn't that be going around the treaty and ignoring the principle of it i like will, vladimir putin is violating the letter of the, so if someone accuses the us of violating the spirit, i'm not terribly concerned. >> would it be possible or a better step to renegotiate the treaty given like you said it's 30 years old and times have changed? >> we should not renegotiate a treaty from a position of weakness where our only counterpart is violating the treaty and therefore dictates
the terms they want to impose on us and that's why the right posture now is to put greater pressure on russia to come back in compliance. should they not do that and obviously we should not remain in a treaty where we have become the only country on earth and that refrains from building a particular weapon system. >> good. i saw one over here, right here this a gentleman and within one in the back. >> senator cotten, you referenced in your speech the fact that china and that is not a party to the treaty has developed cruise missiles in violation with the treaty regardless of our participation, so i'm curious if you think there are steps the us should take to respond to the threat of chinese cruise missiles outside of leaving the treaty? >> well it's difficult for the
us to-- for a system that's not part of that treaty. with the us should do is take a firmer line with china in all manners of interactions to put more pressure on china to stop its aggressive behavior in the asia-pacific, so north korea is in the headlines a lot today. there is a vast scope of pressure we can bring to bear on china. if they don't help us with the north korea problem more, they will feel some pain. to make it clear that we will work with the other nations and our allies to prevent china from militarizing it and dominating it appeared that also includes several measures designed to bolster taiwan's defenses or to push back on china's campaign international isolation against taiwan.
the national defense authorization act would probably be the most pro- taiwan piece of legislation. a few examples-- [inaudible] >> right in the back is one. >> senator, in 2008, nato there was a promise made georgia and ukraine when they would become the nato members and a lot has changed, 20% of georgia-- [inaudible question] >> are you worried about russia's attempt to destabilize the region and to bolster anti- american, anti- western attitude
especially in its neighborhood. >> at the moment it's not obvious the path of georgia and the ukraine were taking to nato. while they still have russian troops on their soil, so our immediate objective should be to enough pressure to bear on russia that they leave those lands and give back crimea to ukraine and leave eastern ukraine in northern georgia. secretary tiller's and coming into the bilateral meeting was clear the sanctions we put in place on russia, relatively tepid though they have been will remain in place while they are russian troops on ukrainian soil took the second part of your question, of course russia is trying to destabilize and divide the west. again, that is what they have been doing for decades, not just in the soviet era, but the vladimir putin era as well. they did in 1983, when they
helped fund massive protests against the deployment of inf forces to europe and they do it today in elections and western europe and our elections here. they do it through snap military exercises or increasingly this is simply what russia doesn't that's why we have to meet these provocations with unyielding response. >> okay. who else? i see one in the front and one in the middle. >> sir, max müller, state department. you mentioned possibly drop in the eye and asked if it's in the us interest, do you see a possible to illuminate the inf and more or less tardy arms race in europe and also reassure our allies not to create additional structuralism. >> what was the last part of your question: do you see it possible to eliminate the inf and reassure allies to not create additional structuralism in nato.
>> currently the inf is breached by russia and the one situation we cannot tolerate is that russia remains in violation of the treaty while the us remains hilly country the us that refrains from building a potent weapon system. if the current state of affairs remains the same i agree and that's why my legislation is designed to put pressure on-- pressure on russia. if they don't or even if getting the shifting nature of global strategic competition we decide it's in our interest to no longer be a party the treaty then we should withdraw. i suspect we will reach that point sooner rather than later. as for the european divide, the europeans are always divided to a degree. they're divided in part because russians use such views to keep them divided in their summer european countries that strongly
oppose carter in reagan's decision to deploy forces in the late 70s and early 1980s, but it turned out well. there are other countries that supported it. it's a matter-- is for us diplomacy to maintain political unity among our nader allies when confronted with such serious threat as russia deploying once again cruise missiles that can strike all of europe. >> on the specific points i've mentioned in my legislation we are talking about defensive spending on the magnitude of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and that will be offset through our defense accounts. on the broader point about military modernization we are talking about tens of billions
of dollars in the long-term, hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming decade. i would argue simply our defense defending is not what drives our deficit. drives our long-term debt and if anything it helps control long-term debt because it assures the safety and security of american interest around the world. we are a global power with global trading interests and we have a keen interest in global order. our defense spending has never been a driver of our deficit. it's actually in the long-term house control it by keeping peace and stability throughout the world and helping to keep our economy growing and healthy and avoid the degradation of a general war. what really drives our deficit is long-term health and retirement programs as well ass weak academic growth for the last 10 years, so we can attack from the growth side by trying to get our economy back.