tv NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg Remarks CSPAN April 8, 2016 6:24am-7:58am EDT
so it is the first step in the right direction after just one year. so i'm not certain whether you offer about defense spending, whether europeans are concerned. they are concerned in the way many of them understand that they have to contribute more to our collective defense, and that we don't have a fair burden sharing and that's also the reason why all 28 allies, although europeans agreed on the pledge we made in 2014 to step up their investments in defense.
>> well said. obviously there are concerns in this country as well as europe about how some of the conversation has been praised about nato. but the overall question, beyond the question of burden sharing about nato's relevance is not really anyone. sometimes it's spoken of in monetary terms. europeans are free riders. i think you have addressed that just now and certainly angel remarks, and shown that the situation is, in fact, improving. but more broadly in the years since the cold war ended he's had a lot of foreign policy experts from george kennan to donald rumsfeld questioning whether nato should survive. most of those concerns were based on the end of the soviet union. you spoke of the largest reinforcement of collective
defense since the end of the cold war, and certainly some of nato's eastern members have argued that the cold war never really ended. general breedlove spoke recently of a shift in nato doctrine from assurance to deterrence, which i think in some ways is arguably a return to the past. i wonder if you could talk a bit about russia, what you think the actual threat is that russia poses to the alliance right now. what are putin's goals? on his actions arguably a response as some argued years ago to nato's expansion right to russia's borders? is there a limit that you see to, i will say putin, but russia's desire to expand its own sphere of influence? or do you see it, do you think they see it as a defensive
mechanism? >> i will say some words about russia in a moment i will stop commenting on the introduction to the question because that is also related to this concern, whether part of the debate in united states provides reason for concern in europe at the united states is not focused on europe, the united states is not going to continue transatlantic alliance and so on. first of all, i would like to say that the first time i visited the united states was in 1980. then i was 21 years old. no, not 21 years old. i visited the united states together with my father. he was then defense minister of norway and we traveled a week around the united states, different military base in different political think tanks and sold. i guess the same people are still around.
the main issue then was the concern about that the united states was not going to be supportive of europe, and that was in 1980. so we have been concerned for many years, but we are still going strong. that means of course we should always be concerned but at the same time went to see that we're able to deliver everyday as a strong alliance, the strongest ever and the strongest in the world. we are able to liver deterrence, able to deliver collective defense that we are able to start together when actually needed. so for instance, as i mentioned in my speech the first time and the only time ever we have invoked the collective defense anthe goals was after an attackn the united states, and then europeans stepped up to help and support our allies and the united states. one-third of the forces as i said in afghanistan, they have
come from canada, europe and european nato partner countries. and more than 1000 european and canadian soldiers have lost their lives in afghanistan, and many more have been wounded. so it's just a strong example of how the european allies stand together with united states when needed. the of course i would like us to do more, yes, but the alliance is working. the alliance is delivering a we providing everyday. we have done it since 1980 when i was concerned the first time. so i am permanently concerned a quite successful. that's good for the alliance. then about russia, we don't see any imminent threat against any
nato ally our country, including the countries in the eastern part. but what we see is the more a sort of russia, responsible for aggressive actions in ukraine, and willing to use military force not only in russian military capabilities but also the willingness to use those capabilities to intimidate neighbors, to change borders in europe, crimea, destabilize eastern ukraine, and having troops in georgia and moldova and so on. and this is of course a great concert at us when we responded. and when i say we, i mean the united states in europe together. before we didn't have forces in eastern part of the alliance. now we have forces there on an official basis, and we have
substantial increased our ability to redeploy forces if needed. again i'm concerned, but as long as we are able to adapt, and because we're able to adapt we are responding to those concerns and making sure that the baltic countries come almeida on the countries are sick because nato is there. >> do you have a sense of what the ultimate goal is a russia's actions as you try to strategize to provide this deterrent capability and as a show of strength? what is your sense of what they're hoping to achieve? >> it's always dangerous to speculate, but what we see is that rush is trying to reestablish a sphere of influence about its borders. that's why they are behaving as they are in georgia and moldova, in ukraine.
and that's not acceptable because they are violating international law. they are not respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of independent nations, countries in europe. and that's also reflected is important that we respond. at the same time we are responding by the biggest reinforcement our collective defense since the end of the cold war. but at the same time, i always underlined that nato is not seeking confrontation with russia. we will avoid a new cold war. actually we are striving for a more cooperative and constructive relationship with russia, but we believe we have to be strong. we have to be firm. we have to be predictable to establish the basis for a political engagement and dialogue with russia.
i think i mentioned many times before, but my experience is that there is no contradiction between strong defense and political dialogue. actually as long as we are strong we can also engage in political dialogue. and in the long run rush has to understand that they will gain more from cooperating with us instead of confronting us. >> you spoke about a new strategic reality that nato is facing, and the primary threat to security right now seems to be violent extremism and the spread of it in the world. you outlined what is not necessarily a new role for nato, but certainly a broader expansion of the role and making it into a core capability for nato, and that's the training and partnership institutional aspects of it. and you set up three ways of
doing that. first one was to build overseas capacities for countries on the front line against violent extremism. obviously, that's what nato has been doing in afghanistan certainly since the end of the combat mission. but i wonder if you're concerned now about what's been happening in afghanistan. general nicholson who is the new commander there is getting his own recommendations ready for the administration about what the u.s. military presence should be after the beginning of 2017. and as you know, current plans call for it to be almost cut in half, the u.s. presence. but general nicholson has spoken recently about how the training program really has been set back because of the level of fighting during 2015, which is one of the worst years they have had certainly in a long time, not on
the ground forces also forces in the air. we just expect nato forces, assuming that u.s. forces remain there ethic of love, could you expect those nato components that are still active in afghanistan to do the same? what do you think is the likelihood that they would be, so u.s. forces have been dragged back into the fighting as it becomes more difficult there, and certainly as the fighting season starts to ramp up again? >> the situation in afghanistan is not easy, and actually it's very difficult. i visited afghanistan just a couple weeks ago. and there is fighting, the afghan national army has good forces. they have lost many soldiers, and taliban is trying to control
different parts of the country, and we have many other groups, al-qaeda, different terrorist groups, isil in afghanistan, and it's in no way an easy situation. but having said that i think we also have to remember that it hasn't been easy in afghanistan in decades. so the starting point is not a peaceful, stable country. the starting point is the country which was safe haven for international terrorists. the taliban in kabul during the country. and what we have achieved is that we have enabled the nato presence there for many years to build a strong national afghan army and security force which is capable, professional, and strong enough to take responsibility for the security of the whole country. that's the not a small thing.
that's a big thing. so we been able to end our combat mission because we have enabled them to do the fighting. and i think very much that we should continue to enable them, continue to support them and, therefore, i think it was the right decision a president obama to maintain the current force levels through 2016. at the same time the u.s. conversation and the president has announced they will go from 985,500 by the end of the year -- 9800, to 5500 by the end of the year. that is something we will address, decide at our summit in july. regardless in the wake of what we finally decide when it comes to the scale and the scope of
the rest of the support mission, we have already decided will continue to support also in 2017 but we haven't decided on the force levels, and we haven't decided exactly on the scope of our presence in 2017 and beyond that. so i am not able to answer you precisely exactly our presence will be in 2017. but what i can say is will continue to support them, train them and advise them, it will continue to fund them. you have to remember where supporting the afghan army and security forces in two ways. we provide training, assistance with 12,000 nato troops. but we also fund the national army with u.s. funds and european funds and japan, south korea and others come and nato partners are also contributing. and we are concerned in europe that we are spending less than 2% of gdp on defense.
in afghanistan they spend 25% of gdp on defense of course that's only possible because that is mainly coming from the united states, european allies and partners. so we will continue to support afghanistan exactly how we will do it we will decide, but we will continue to fund them and continued to have nato presence. because we believe we have to enable forces in the region, in afghanistan come in the middle east, north africa to stabilize their own countries, and in long-term that's better than we deploying combat troops. >> just to continue on the theme of training and support capabilities. you spoke about iraq and the role, expanded role that nato could play. there's been some suggestion that the coalition itself a sort
of coalition of the willing, and ad hoc structure really without any particular structure and that perhaps this is the role that nato could play, that nato could take over some of the organizational aspects of training as well as putting the various components in place to do it, and that nato could actually serve in the wake that it has in afghanistan as a kind of secretariat for that war. that seems to be what you are suggesting, that this could be nato, that nato could undertake a much larger role in addition to drug assistance to iraq in some is organizing activities council and activities at least of the coalition. can you talk more about that? >> using nato as a tool, is that innate, for instance, building
capacity, training as we've done in afghanistan? let me add before continue, if there's anything wrong with it in afghanistan than it was then we could start training earlier. we should of started the build capacity earlier in order for them to take responsibly for the own security earlier. but the advantage of using native is that nato as the structures, and we have mechanisms for generating forces. we meet regularly, s sometimes your degenerate forces for different missions in kosovo, in afghanistan and other places. of course, training missions in iraq, then we can do that. it's a stronger commitment when you're part of a nato alliance to provide the necessary forces, and then the commitment than just a part of a list of the willing. a coalition of the willing is by definition a question of more if you're willing.
a stronger commitment. we have the mechanisms to generate forces and that's a great advantage, and we could then provide more support for the united states. second, we have the command structure spirit we have different training centers. we have some in europe. we work in jordan, king abdullah training center. we will soon have the center in kuwait. we have a lot of experience doing training capacity building, everything from building institutions, defense ministries, headquarters and institution building to train soldiers in a dangerous environment. and thirdly, we have the expertise, an the experience. i mentioned, for instance, improvised explosive devices. the reason why nato knows a lot about how to counter-ied is is
that we've done that for many, many years in afghanistan. so we can take that experience and apply it in, for instance, iraq. but we will, of course made it will only do things which are allies ask us to do, and we have to find the right balance between fighting, and i think the coalition should continue to set. but i think -- continue to do that. i think nato should do more coordinated with and add value and complement what coalition is doing when it comes to training. also, one more thing. for many small and medium-sized countries, nato allies and partners countries, it is often extremely expensive and difficult to do training on a bilateral basis. for instance, in iraq, because
when nato does the training we have one agreement, one legal framework. we have our infrastructure, transportation all organized as nato at a small country can just and in some special operation forces into some training. in norway, it was for them a big, they negotiate all legal arrangement you need to deploy forces in iraq. while when norway deployed forces to afghanistan, those things are in place and not just plug into the framework. i think it is also more cost effective. we spend less money, less people on organizing by many bilateral force, when plugging into a nato framework. suggests you are right. i believe that nato could do more, but it has to be coordinated with the efforts of the coalition and it has to be complementary, has to be how do i said, done in way which would
serve the purpose of the missi mission. >> would you see that as taking over the existing bilateral training programs? because the americans, huge effort there. the canadians, the italians, there are lots of different, separate training programs that are doing different things with different groups of iraqis, to a large extent. >> i would rather speak about scaling up what we have started to do. started to train iraqi officers. then i would like to consider whether we start to do things inside iraq. i think it's very important we do this in absolute coordination with the coalition, and that the allies are ready to do. so i think we should step lives and to evaluate the experience and decide whether we should do more than what more. so the scale and scope, i think
that to decide as a step-by-step and have a pragmatic approach. we also need high end fighting. we need to continue to the airstrikes. and i don't, i'm not arguing nato should take over that high end fighting. i think that could be done by come and i should are not so many allies during the. the united states, uk, france and some others. but the thing is of course we need the high-end airstrikes to help the iraqi forces liberate mosul get the thing is when multiple is liberated, then the question is how do you hold mosul? how do you maintain the control of mosul? and then you need trained, skilled, professional, local forces. and if that's not nato forces, u.s. forces, french or german forces, then it has to be local forces. and, therefore, we should start
now, not to wait. because if you wait ages becomes more difficult and more expensive, event always not as good a. that's also the case, another kind of group of countries. iraq, there is a war going on. jordan is a stable country. it's an island of stability in the sea of instability in the middle east, jordan is under pressure. tunisia, this intricate a stable, democratic country in northern africa, but they are under heavy pressure from terrorist organizations. and we should help them now. we should not wait until they're really into deep trouble and then start helping. prevention is better than intervention. that's a gold will. so we should help now, not later on. for capacity building is also about building capacity before a
country slides into conflict or crisis. and then if the country is in crisis, we should help them build capacity to get out of the crisis, as we should do in iraq or hopefully also in libya. >> what about syria? to see anyone at all for nato? >> it is a great advantage for the coalition that so many new allies and nato partner countries have been able to draw forces. because nato has developed what we call interoperability, experience to work together in high-end, dangerous military operations, and we have developed that through the nato exercises, nato standardization
and, of course, operations like in afghanistan. and this experience, this interoperability develop among nato allies and partners is extremely useful for the coalition in syria now. and then, of course, we are also responding to the conflict in syria by supporting turkey, bordering syria and iraq. we have assurance measures, nato presence in turkey, and everything we do related also to stabilizing the region is also relevant to syria, but we don't have -- inside syria. >> i would like to open the floor to questions know. i will call on you and if you could -- on the microphone? yes. and identify yourself and hopefully ask a quick question so that we can have a lot of
response. yes, sir. >> karl from csis. pleasure to hear your comments, secretary-general. i was wondering, you talked about how nato can work close with regional allies to stabilize fragile states and i was wondering if you see a role for some of nato's partners, i'm thinking of sweden and finland, for example, in particular who have had unique state-building and reform capabilities. is there a role for them? would that be a way to close integrate them into nato and even giving them a sort of persuasion for membership in the long-term rather than having sort of a classic russian debate? would this be a way of making them more closely integrated into the nato networked? thanks. >> i absolutely see a role for sweden and finland join our efforts to build capacity in
north africa, the wider middle east, the region. sweden and finland are already contributing, double combat very much. that's one of the advantages of made is that we've proven our ability to mobilize partner countries. sweden and finland has participated and contributed a lot. so i welcome that there much and i would like to see more of that. and again this important for the missions are sweden and finland participates, but you also to understand the way we are, the interoperability is to make military operations like afghanistan and perhaps also other places. and yesterday i visited fort bragg and i met with 82nd airborne division, and they told me about how they been able to develop interoperability, ability to work together by
being stationed in afghanistan and working with nato allies but also with sweden and finland. whether this will have any impact on the membership debate in sweden i don't know, but i have said before i have lost two references in norway trying to convince to join european union. so you should not ask me for advice on how to convince the swedes to join nato. [laughter] that's on the level of taxi driving. [laughter] >> thank you, kurdistan tv. what are russia and iran's roles in syria? thank you. and your opinion of kurdish
forces, peshmerga fight against isis? thank you. >> the peshmerga forces like an important role, and many nato allies and partner countries are providing training for peshmerga forces as a part of the efforts to degrade and destroy isil. so i think that's an example of how we are building local capacity. i'm arguing to do that more, and the more organized framework, more cost efficient and with greater impact. russia's role in syria is that day, and also iran, is that they support the assad regime. they declared that very clearly, and it done by deploying military forces in syria. and even though there's been
some reduction in the russian presence, russia still a substantial military forces in syria. air forces, ground forces and naval forces in the eastern mediterranean. so the main role of russia in syria is to support the assad regime. >> wow, so many of you. i told you nato was a hot topic. >> i am from gcc. i am from uae, and i want to ask you about how do you evaluate your relation with gcc in terms of cooperation? i believe they look for more from nato rather than just visiting their capabilities. can nato assure them stability and security in the region,
vis-à-vis iran? any of the question is how much can you give nato and projecting stability in the region, how much you give mark for nato and the arab region, projecting stabilization? >> well, as i said i very much believe that we can expand cooperation with the gulf cooperation council. this is a united arab emirates -- i visited united arab emirates a couple weeks ago. i think by helping countries in the region to stabilize the region we are of course also making the country more secure. the whole idea is, if nato's neighborhood is more stable, they are more secure and we are more secure. it's not in a way, security is not you get less of it you share
it. you get more security if you create security together. so i strongly believe in us working together with the gcc. i also believe that the gcc countries can help us working jointly, for instance, with fighting isil, with building capacity in a country like iraq. so for me we have to do many things at the same time and we have degree we will start to step up and hopefully we will be able to make decisions related to this at our summit in warsaw. >> this. in the back, way in the back. the lady in the red. >> i'm from the polish embassy. wanted to ask a quick question. first regarding political -- what conditions must be
fulfilled to fully comparable resumption of works? and do you think somehow balance with greater cooperation with ukraine and georgia? the second question is for the realignment of nato as opposed to increase the presence on the eastern flank with the american initiative. and the last one, is there an appetite in nato for more, to look in the arctic? thank you. >> first, the nrc or the nato-russian council, i think it's important to underline to t the following. and that is after the illegal annexation of crimea in 2014, nato decided to suspend all
practical cooperation with russia, but we decided at the same time to maintain our political dialogue with russia or maintain channels for political communication. so the nato-russia council has never been suspended. actually went to meetings in the council after the annexation of crimea. so whole idea is that practical cooperation has been suspended, political dialogue has been in place. so the challenge now has been not to come how shall i say, have decision to nato russia council, because it's been all the time. but the challenge has been to agree on the agenda for new meeting. we are in process of discussing that with the russians, and hopefully we'll be able to agree on the agenda and then convened a meeting. let me underline that for me,
dialogue is not an expression of weakness. it is an expression of strength. because, it is because we are strong. it is because we are confident, that we are not afraid of talking to the russians. and even during the cold war we talked to them, and i think it's in our interests to talk to them on many different issues, especially risk reduction, transparency related to the activity. i think the downing of the russian plane in turkey underlines how important it is that we do our utmost to have military to military communications, to avoid that kind of instance. we have to try to avoid them. we have to make sure that they don't spiral and come out of control and create dangerous situations. so dialogue is not weakness. dialogue is strength.
sorry, there were two more questions. i forgot them. as we decided at our defense minister love meeting in february to have come increase our military presence in eastern part of the alliance, perhaps romania, bulgaria. exactly the scale and scope is not yet decided we are working on that now, but what we are aiming at is a multinational force sending a very clear signal that an attack on one of baltic country want other nato ally country would trigger the response from the whole of alliance. the arctic, it's cold there. [laughter] the only thing is, when people to arctic, many people think about the north pole, but half of my own country is in the
arctic. so half of know what is in the arctic and i assume many nice people up there, and some polar bears and so on. and, but because the reason i'm saying this is that nato is present in the arctic. the main nato forces in the arctic is danish forces, icelandic, not some in icelandic, and, of course, we'll also nato exercises in northern part of norway from for so many nato allied countries. with a neither exercise in norway recently. so nato is present in the arctic, and we have to follow the developments very closely because we've seen also russian military buildup in the arctic. at the same time we have the
arctic council where united states is a member, canada is member, russia, norway, denmark and other countries, several other countries. but also the degree of cooperation in the arctic related to search and rescue, environmental issues, with russia, think of section importantly continued to do that and we don't increase tensions in the arctic. we try to calm the tensions. >> i'm going to ask people to just limit themselves to one question. the questions have been really good but maybe we can take two or three at a time if you limit yourself to just one. yes, sir come and then i will come around. >> al-jazeera tv. turkey, there are so many voices
that are sitting that nato would be better off without turkey. they are claiming that turkey has betrayed the alliance, is helping collaborating with isis. is fighting the kurds were fighting isis which is fighting the with. how do you comment on that? >> take one more. yes, sir. >> bill, brookings. general breedlove said recently he felt the russians were weaponizing the refugee situation with the aim of destabilizing europe. and i know nato has said, essence of controlled recently but my question is why did it take so long for his response to such a serious security threat to the european continent when
greece and turkey, both front-line states, are members of nato? >> first of all, the problem is norman not too long question for too long and just a guitar to be brief because the questions are important. first on turkey, turkey it dissipates in the coalition fighting title. turkey provides military assets, but in addition turkey provides infrastructure basis and other facilities for the efforts of the coalition fighting title. so without turkey it would've been much difficult to conduct many fighting isil. second, turkey is nato allied most affected by influence -- influx of refugees. it hosts more than 2 million,
posted 3 million press refugees, so turkey is heavily affected by the crisis in iraq, syria. when it comes to nato's role in addressing the migrant and refugee crisis, nato's mineral has been to do with instability in the region, trying to help stabilize the country's where the refugees are coming from. when it comes to managing for handling the refugee crisis in europe, nato is norman not a first responder because this is about border control, cold start, border controls, humanitarian aid and so on to the refugees. but when we were asked, we responded. we actually responded very quickly because of germany, turkey and greece ask nato for
help. and after 48 hours we were able to make the decision to provide the ships and assistance they asked for. and 24 hours after we made a decision, the first nato ships were deployed into the aegean sea. so for me this is an example of how nato can respond quickly if needed. what we've done since is with several ships of there. they are provide, doing reconnaissance, surveillance, and they are sharing in real-time that data they are gathering with the greek coast guard, with the turkish coast guard and with the european union border. and this information is useful for, or instance the turkish
cold start. they are intercepting the traffic out the smugglers and the illegal networks. so i think nato placed the useful role helping the local coast guard. data is not in the business of turning back boats with refugees and migrants. our goal is to help assist, facilitate. add to that, perhaps the most important thing nato is doing in the aegean sea is to create a framework, platform for operation between turkey and greece. turkey not a member of the european union, turkey and greece both the number of nato so nato as an ideal platform for providing an essay cooperation and turkey, greece and the european union. >> there was something about russia at the beginning of that question.
>> sorry. it was about what nato, well, what russia did especially when they were bombing aleppo was of course increase the number of people fleeing syria at increasing the pressure on turkey and i should say europe. i'm very glad, welcome very much the weeks ago trying it, russia and other actors in the region were able to reach agreement on cessation of hostilities. and as we've seen of violations, hostilities have gone substantially down. and we've also see the parties have been able to meet again and start negotiations and try to find negotiated political situation in syria but i will not be easy. it will not have the very --
happen very fast. there will be setbacks and disappointments but in the long run we need negotiated political solution, so i strongly support all efforts. both to make sure that the cease-fire is holding and to make sure that they continue negotiations and talks to find a political solution. >> i know i cheated you before, so you go ahead. >> are violating the comment perhaps on greece violating international law after blocking messaging is nato membership in 2008. greece has a fairly new government in place. macedonia may have a new government starting june. what role will you often play in facilitating, improving relations and finally lifting this blockage on macedonia's nato membership, particularly on
this point you made before, nato whole and that piece of? >> i am a member of the syrian opposition delegation to geneva. itma. he already spoke enough about russia's role in syria and i was waiting to hear the nato's counterstrategy to at least having some balance of power on the ground, but i will not ask you that question. my question is, that have been recently efforts by the gcc led by saudi arabia to establish the islamic coalition against isis. will nato partner, if they ask, with this new form islamic coalition against isis for a direct military intervention in syria? yes or no? thank you. >> is a question was whether native is going to conduct a
direct military intervention into syria, the answer is no. but if the question is whether we are going to work together with the islamic coalition took out her isil, then the answer is yes. because i welcome that islamic countries are going together to fight isil. and i think it's extremely important that islamic countries are in the forefront. and as, for instance, king abdullah of jordan has underlined again and again, this is not a fight between the west and the muslim world. this is a fight against terrorists, criminals, people who are responsible for violent atrocities. and most of the victims are muslims. and muslims are the front fighting isil. and again, my main message is
that we should support, we should help, we should able, we should train, we should insist and help them in many different ways to win the fight against isil. so if you asked me whether we should help the muslim world, muslim forces, muslim countries to fight isil is a strong yes. that was the last question. the first one was about the former yugoslav republic of macedonia. and the reason why i say it like that is that you know and i know that the problem has been ever since nato summit in bucharest i was there as prime minister of norway, that we don't have an agreement on main issue. as long as that issue is unsolved, there is no way we can solve the question of membership. so that's the short answer.
>> i think we have time for maybe two more. >> embassy of romania. as a country on the eastern border of nato, we are highly appreciative of your leadership and addressing the key issues of reinforcing the eastern flank. how do you see this breed enforcement process from a black sea perspective? a region that has multiple strategic challenges both from the east and from the south. thank you. >> hello. through the podium. i encounter with defense one. last week secretary carter said
the u.s. was talking to nato about joining the counter isil coalition as nato for the first time which would be a change. i'm wondering what would involve beyond advise and assist was you just said data witnesses with the counter isil campaign. we did involve troops, special operators? what else besides assist? >> first, romania. the black sea is very important and we have seen that russia is developing what the experts call 8282 or anti-access air do know capabilities and they are deploying those capabilities, or instance in crimea. and we see a pattern all the way from the baltic sea down to the black sea. and, of course, one of the reasons why we are increasing our presence in the eastern part
of the alliance, why we're increasing the readiness of forces and why we're also developing our capabilities is that nato has to be able to overcome those a2ad capabilities which also see in the black sea. our maritime presence is in force -- important. we never speak about this high readiness brigade, but there's an air component. there's a maritime component, and that's part of our response to what we also see in the black sea. so yes, we are very much aware of the challenges in the black sea. more because of the russian annexation of crimea and the strong build up in crimea.
nato supports the coalition. first of all, all nato allies provide forces. and then as i said, nato supports the coalition in different ways. assurance measures in turkey, capacity building in iraq. i will also add that what we do in afghanistan, our biggest military effort ever, is relevant to the fight against terror, including against isil. and we stand to do more in libya libya. one issue we discussed during my visit to washington this week and also with secretary ash carter was the possibility of nato providing awacs support,
our surveillance plane. that is on the table now and it's going to be addressed in nato. and then we will be able to provide you with a more resized into. but awacs support in one way or another is now an issue which is discussed. >> we promised the secretary-general that we would get him out of your on time, and i apologize to everyone who's questions we didn't get too. thank you so much. i think the fact that there are so many questions testifies both developments and level of interest. and we've still managed to cover an enormous amount of ground. thank you so much for your candor in for the completeness other interest. thank you. >> thank you. [applause]
including the challenges of radical islam, uk membership in the impact of the refugee crisis on european political integration. we are live from the hudson institute at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> today, new america releases a plan for scrapping the government's current financial aid programs and offerings methods for lowering college calls for lower and middle income students. we will have live coverage starting at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> in american history tv on c-span3. this weekend, saturday night at eight eastern on lectures and history. >> we see new factors making emancipation the siebel, obstacles falling by the wayside. with result by august if not earlier of 1862. lincoln decided when the time is right he will announce a new aim
war effort that would add to union human freedom. >> weidman college history professor tracy mckenzie on the evolving war goals of the north during the civil war. and then on we are america -- >> how was it possible for america to achieve such production come at the same time build an army? and the amazing reports came in from agents of the united states, 20% of america was woman power. legions of american women were amassing to stop madman across the world, for taking around. spin this 1944 war department film documents how women in world war ii help the war effort alluding to hidden army of american women working in war manufacturing are aiming base in germany lost the war. sunday evening at six on
american artifact we visit the daughters of the american revolution museum to learn about an exhibit working the 125th anniversary of the organization founded in 1890. >> one thing that stands out is his creation of this imagery of the apotheosis. and the apotheosis is an old concept. it goes back to ancient times where a warrior is made godlike by lifting him up and celebrating in. >> on the presidency at eight. >> washington and jefferson of the two most prominent examples of slave owning, it is worth highlighting key facets of their successors who owned slaves, especially those who did so while the occupied the white house. james madison who follow jefferson as the fourth president of the united states owns over 100 slaves, holding a large percentage while the occupied the white house. he is responsible for posing and
expanding the three this compromise guarantees the south held a disproportionate influence upon congress to preserve and uphold slaveowning interest. >> tyler perry, on the 12th american president were slave owners. eight of them while in office. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go to c-span.org. >> next, the czech prime minister talks about the state of the european union including the stabilization in ukraine, european migrant crisis at the potential exit of the united kingdom from the organization. the brooking brookings institutd this one-hour event.