Skip to main content

tv   Public Affairs Events  CSPAN  December 5, 2018 2:00pm-2:31pm EST

2:00 pm
>> please do not go anywhere. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]
2:01 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> have a seat please.
2:02 pm
thank you for your patience. now my pleasure to welcome a great friend of the atlantic council, general philip the microphone is yours. thank you for being with us. >> first of all, thank you to the team for having me and inviting me back and thank you to the panel before. ambassador, i beg to differ you want last, i was last, all the good things have been said so i will just ahead maybe some remarks that might roll a grenade out on the table and see what happens next in the question and answers. it is pretty tough to follow for people who i would consider my professors or mentors on many of these subjects but we'll see how this goes. i will start by asking all of us collectively a question and that russian is are we surprised at all by what happened in the
2:03 pm
street? are we surprised at all keep i agree completely with the fact that this is just the next step and i had my talking point taking away for me and that it started with the inspections of the ships and we see this as just the next iteration of how this pressure is being surprised. or been brought against us. as we reflect back on georgia, yes, mumbai, syria i don't think we should be surprised. frankly, i agree with our learned colleagues from the four this is not the last expected step but there will be more. did we and as i talk about we i would like for you to think of that as the west. as you remember, i was all about being in alliance and a believer in the value of our great alliance and i want to talk always in the context of our allies and working with our
2:04 pm
allies. did we, the west, react appropriately to the invasion of cornea? did we, the west, react appropriately to the invasion of the -- and the support given to those? and not mentioned very much today did we react properly to the shootdown of mh 70. in all the lives lost their. twice the russian federation used literary force to, once again, change internationally recognized borders in the european landmass. what was our response? we knew within hours, maybe dozens of hours is the right way to say it but we knew within hours exactly what happened. and yet, how long did it take us as the west to call this to task and to rollout in a definitive way what happened.
2:05 pm
a couple days over two years. after that and the fact that the pottage stopped boiling and the definitive answers were rolled out what happened? has anyone been held to task and has anyone been brought accountable for the loss of inmate 70? we missed our opportunity and i believe in all three cases to take action when action would have had more appropriate response. we took too long to even put out a real definitive definitive statement on crimea because we were arguing amongst ourselves who the little green men were. we still, i don't think, have put out clear alliance wide definitive remarks about what we saw and continue to see.
2:06 pm
we have seen to accepted it as the new norm. once again, no one has really held anyone accountable for a lot of lives lost in the shootdown of the airline. what has our response and so far? i will sound very critical. i don't mean to be overly critical but i want to grade this like if i was a fighter pilot grading up performance of my airman in an air to air engagement. where lives are at stake. we don't pull punches. mintz, i ask you, is minsk working? is minsk working? i don't see anybody shaking their head, nor in southward minsk is not working. neither side is moving. frankly, we, now that we've been thing i states, we through the action over to our french and german allies to take care of it
2:07 pm
and we really kept back away from it. i don't think minsk is working. we have yet, either as the united states or as the west to have engaged russia in their information war and their cyber war below the lines. they continue to bring this this information war, as i call it, on the legitimacy of government, on what the government is trying to do for its people and they begin and continue to bring the pressures like in the kurt straight to say this government cannot protect the people cannot take care of what the people need and frankly, because they are so distracted with what is going on on the line of contact they can't get to the reform that the -- demanded of them. so, the impetus in the beginning is not being met and could be
2:08 pm
that spark that causes the problems we talked about that could happen in the next election. what do we do on the military site? i remember the first reply and we sent brave and marty's. i am being harsh but i would offer there's much more that we could of done we eventually got to sending counter more art radars although limited so et cetera -- again, the timing and debate watered down the effect of what we did for ukraine. what we did do is what we always do when we have issues with russia. that is in all respects to, i call the investor my professor
2:09 pm
occasionally, what we did was sections. that's how we deal with russia but we don't do strong diplomatic measures and we don't do any informational measures. we do very weak military measures so that we don't provoke or accelerate the problem and we had them with sections. that's what we always do. i would offer to you that my overview of our response to any of these actions be at crimea , or to the shootdown of mh 17 we have responded in a very violent way in the economic sphere with sanctions and not taken those broader diplomatic informational and military steps that we should have taken. it might then jump out to you what i would suggest that we do do. first, i think we have to decide publicly that we have to confront these actions.
2:10 pm
if we do not confront these actions why would we expect them to change? it just is not logical to follow. second, we need to realize the sanctions along will not and have not russian behavior? third, i would say as americans we need to reinsert ourselves into the thought and action leadership positions in these kind of matters. right, wrong or indifferent i pass no judgment on this political position but what i would observe having been the commander and the secretary for nato is when the us step back from these roles it did not work well for us. finally, i think we need to determine again publicly to
2:11 pm
answer these challenges in an all of government fashion. we need to work with allies and work other leaders among the allies and lead some allies to reassert diplomatic pressure on russia and to clearly show broad support ending their rash and dangerous behavior. this is not the time for mincing of terms. it's time for very clear language amongst us and our allies. we need to refute in no uncertain terms the russian narrative on crimea. we need to aggressively answer and refute the disinformation campaign and that i call war below the lines in both cyberspace and infospace. we don't need to lie to our people or need to do some form if we simply, aggressively hold the truce we know about these
2:12 pm
situations and if we brought our allies along with us to aggressively unmask and tell the truth that is enough for a start. we need to take the next steps to make ukraine and was wonderfully suggested, some of our allies around ukraine more military old bible. it's not my word but i like it. good friend of mine said we need to make ukraine the kind of porcupine that russia can't swallow. we need to sharpen the tools and capabilities of the ukrainians so that russia sees it as too expensive. i would have added to that death of their soldiers. these are things russia has had to worry about and eight not too distant past we need to make ukraine a porcupine.
2:13 pm
i happen to believe that every nation has a right to defend itself. additionally in military measures before i became you come commander and during the time i was the commander you, staff in a us bilateral thence with the ukrainian military did extensive study on how to more professionalize and improve and adapt the ukrainian military forces. we don't need to be hugely creative and there already has been a lot of very in-depth wonderful staff worked on that can fall back on those things that we could do to adapt and help ukraine to be that porcupine. we need to address the growing 82 a.d., anti- access area denial capability of the crimea. if you believe the pictures in the paper the last two days
2:14 pm
we've now seen pictures of s400 in placements on crimea. that is a problem. that's a problem for all manner of aircraft traveler through that airspace. we need to address the clear naval shortfall that allows russia to use the bullying tactics they have used in the streets. there were so many good suggestions made by the panel of absolute one that we can do in this manner and i will not repeat all of this but maybe a few that are more incendiary that maybe i'm not suggesting but i believe should be considered. long-range precise fires. can nato or can the ukraine hold precise targets at risk in th the -? in crimea? coastal defense cruise missiles,
2:15 pm
it would be decades possibly before the ukrainian navy could challenge the russian navy in these waters. but certainly capability to strike with lethality and with precision from store would give the russian federation pause. we should find and support continued and more targeted sanctions and i love the words used up here. i even sharpened them one more level. i believe russia is a clip talk or see on bike progress. we need to be clearly targeting these cryptic rats and their money abroad wherever it is. when we bring pressure as mentioned by three of the panels on that group right around mr. putin i think that is appropriate next step. i hope that's enough grenades rolled out on the table. thank you.
2:16 pm
i'm glad to be here and i will do my very best to answer the questions, the hard questions, especially as they relate to politics. i will defer to the two ambassadors were not smart enough to depart. [laughter] [applause] >> why don't you have a seat? i will take the privilege of the first question. you mentioned coastal defense cruise missiles and do you have any particular missiles in mind? >> i tell you what i would not want to go there because i think that as i said before first of all this is a pretty big step and this is not a step that i would take unilaterally but something that i would want our nato allies to be a part of and so maybe it's an ally system or us system and i realize
2:17 pm
tomahawks were brought up before and there are some specific things to consider but we have two raise the stakes for this kind of aggressive behavior and one of the things that should be considered the next one more question -- sandy mentioned the importance of increasing the nato presence in the black sea? would you endorse that as a way of suggesting the russians created an additional strategic problem for themselves while their latest aggression? >> i did a set when i was commander because as you know we stepped up the destroyers in the black sea i think that it's important that not just the united states but we have very capable allies and frankly, some very capable partners might also come alongside. i think it is important for nato to say that the black sea is an
2:18 pm
open body of water. >> your meaning is clear, we need to help others in the backseat. okay. questions right here. >> thank you. [inaudible] former diplomat [inaudible] in ukraine. topic for this event is precisely reflects what will go on and in this context i like to produce the proposition in the first page of the website called for the atlantic council to change the subtitle of section russian ukrainian conflict and russian aggression against ukraine and against ukraine. it will be more precise reflects is going on. and it will act to the notion of
2:19 pm
aggression of the resolution of the united nations federal assembly. so, if we are speaking about political and legal instruments in international are not used enough to enhance what they already can do. what do i need? for example, the maritime international organization there is also the [inaudible] there is the danube convention and a lot of stuff has to be done and there is the possibility to exclude russian from different government borders with the organization itself but in most organizations a lot of countries majority of countries is suggest
2:20 pm
no one. >> my question is what do you think has to be done by russia for everybody to understand the necessity to create into russia coalition or at least the task force which deal with the ukrainian problem and which would act to the russian aggression? thank you. >> not criticizing but after all that i think what you asked is what is the next step that russia would have to take in order for us to respond with a task force? i can't define it. i don't think i would even want to try to define it. i think that back to what you said before much agreement with couple of things he said. one there are a lot of agreements out there and if we simply made efforts to hold us
2:21 pm
accountable to all those agreements that would be a good first step, what did it? and so i think that they first start. secondarily, what i have learned very quickly as a factor was that i cannot speak for the 28 nations. i cannot speak for them but i could try to leave them in their military options. i would offer am sure that the factor is ready to answer your question. >> question over here. >> my question is to you, john and to you, phil. regarding nato deployments in that state the convention limits you to 21 days and relatively small ships. quite frankly, romania has not made, in my judgment, the changes in the with this new defense minister the chances are slim to none so we have to move on to other things.
2:22 pm
i'm pessimistic to think this demonstration will take any steps you suggest, at least the white house. the only opening i can think that might be useful, as you know, in the national defense strategy the mission is to deter and if necessary, to defeat among other countries and perhaps one might want to think about encouraging jim and joe these to examine how will we deter russia pacifically in the black sea? and to get the only competent branch of government right now i'm sad to say in this demonstration some ideas that may be useful in shaping debate because were wasting our time with this white house but i like to get your views on that. the next your views, mr. ambassador? >> i agree with the premise of what you are saying about we need to understand what it would take to deter russia in the black sea. and while many are hoping all
2:23 pm
say something military i believe it starts with something that sandy said before and that is we have to do this as an alliance with our other allies and with the not just not just the participation but we can be seen as going us unilaterally as a matter but that would play in to mr. putin's hand. this would start first by building that alliance even if it's a mini coalition of the willing inside the alliance to show the nato flag more aggressively in the sea. at the extreme other end the russians have been harassing ukrainian votes -- po ats. maybe we harass russians? these are ordinary measures. the message we have to send is
2:24 pm
this is not your backyard and you don't drive the train. >> i would simply add to that that while i understand your skepticism about the white house what you've seen with this ministration is the policies that have evolved and i use that world the liberally, involved, through serious thinking by defense, state and nfc whatever reservations may be in the white house have seen to elaborate policies have turned out to be pretty good. notion of duty developing these policies along these lines is quite possible and i agree that we want to use nato context and while the whole alliance might be optical i think there are partners happy to join in this, particularly the canadians and polls. next question. over here and then we'll come over here.
2:25 pm
>> atlantic council, federal, two questions that, in fact, about -- [inaudible] in your experience how would you craft policy towards turkey because turkey is absolutely important here is the black sea maritime power and it does have experience in -- i will say harassing but behaving assertively vis-à-vis our other nato ally, greece, but the second question is what can we do now to the extent you want to discuss and disclose in terms of the area of the canal and the reservoir? can you reinforce there or what would you recommend? thank you. >> let me agree with the first
2:26 pm
promise and do it much more broadly. turkey is incredibly important to whatever answers are crafted and i like the suggestion before to begin to have conversations about re- looking at the convention. i'm not sure that turkey would sign up for that wrinkly but the fact of the matter is that if we had continued bad behavior in the black sea then we write need to rethink who comes and goes from the black sea and with what freedoms and for what reason and turkey would be the critical ally in that respect. the -- as i said earlier, i learned this word and i am an aviator but i learned that naval word. the hydrogenated fee of the street is an incredible interest in one and could be used by either the russians or others to
2:27 pm
cross problems in that area. it's not off the table, i think. you bring up the other end of the water of the black seas and there are many ways to be more defensible and aggressive they are. i will not wander off into what it is or how but i would leave where i started. this critical step here is to work with turkey, not craft policy at them or whatever but to work with turkey to find ourselves in a better and more responsible alliance position as it regards to the mantra convention. next question. >> one over here. >> i wanted to ask in the wake of this attack on ukrainian vessel [inaudible] [inaudible]
2:28 pm
[inaudible] question is -- if absence of sanctions the ambassador has said what does the united government or maybe the military view to convince the germans that there is this direct military to the element to protect ukraine of stoppin stopping -- immediately. >> i let the ambassador answer. 90% is because it is more about us government than the military. here's what i said many times before. i think is that it from this stage that when the russian federation used their all of government approach to bring rusher on ukraine and then to
2:29 pm
bring pressure on the rest of europe to not respond to their transgressions in ukraine pricing, recall of loans and shutting off energy was one of the first tools they used. and so, it did have a military impact by dissolving or diffusing the response in the fear of those nations who were absolutely dependent on russia for their energy. facing those tools russia use. it is a tool that has military impact. >> first, i would say with the exception of -- one does not look to the us strategic insight but his statement is all about ejecting nordstrom to -- >> we break away from the last few minutes of this event to get
2:30 pm
you to the floor of the u.s. senate which today will consider the nomination of -- to serve on the federal energy regular straight commission. later this week respect senate to vote on short-term spending bill one the government to december 21. live coverage of the u.s. senate now on c-span2. ning prayer wille offered by pastor louis giglio of passion city church of atlanta, georgia. the guest chaplain: father, we pause today to lift our eyes to heaven, the place our help comes from. and we bow to honor you and to worship you for who you are. we recognize we are here because of your sovereign will. so may this chamber know the wind of heaven today as it seeks the common good for those it serves.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on