Transcripts For CSPAN3 Brent 20240705 : vimarsana.com

Like. Cspan, powered by cable. Host a deep dive on the key nato summit happening in lithuania. Our and he dove now on a key nato summit taking place this week in this mania. Our guest, defense experts. A senior fellow from the Heritage Foundation. Friedman a policy director at the defensive priorities. Mr. Freeman, first, the summit began yesterday. What was your take away from day one . Well, it is a kind of predictable disappointment for ukraine. Obviously a big issue, if you Different Things are going on. Swedens likely ascension to nato. The biggest issue, of course, is ukraine and what the alliance is going to do for ukraine. Ukraine, obviously, wants to be a full member of nato. They want that membership assumes possible. It appears that what happened at the summit is essentially the can with kicked down the road. The joining nature of nato at some future date. It is a great disappointment to ukraine and its most ardent followers. It means that the United States is not gonna be on the hook for defending ukraine anytime soon. Other than the arms areas which are likely to the Washington Times a similar headlines across all the major papers. Lewinsky pillorys nato leaders were lack of a firm date her leadership. Were we expecting affirmed it on this . No, i do not think the firm day the way things function could be offered to zelenskyy. Understandably hes frustrated. But that is just the way that this alliance which need to have in the unanimous consent to move forward on any decision. It was pretty clear that there was Popular Support with the nato members to bring ukraine into the fold eventually. At this stage at this time when there is an active war i think the from day is something that would be beyond impossible. But that something that we knew beyond . Ukraine would be in the fold eventually at some point. Was there consensus on that before this . I think that, privately, yes. When you hear it when you start to follow some discussions coming out of various european capitals our president statements, however, were not helpful. He couldve taken a much more positive sense of the position he took in the statements were not helpful. In the near term. I do not think that that will change the trajectory of the uk eventually becoming a nato country. I am more interested in following how china has reacted to this, also. I want to come back to. This army go back to the frustration by president zelenskyy. This is his tweet. It is unprecedented, and absurd, whenhe timeframe is not set for ukraine and t same time awarding that conditions even for inviting ukraine it seems that there is no readiness to invite ukraine to nato north america and member of the alliance. A window overturned the is being left to bargain the membership in negotiation with russia. For a, show this means motivation for continued terror. Your reading of . That it would be unprecedented if we put ukraine on a direct path to nato now that it isnt a war with russia. Not knowing when the war. Dan in their entry article six would have to happen . Article five. Yeah. You cannot enter nato without article five. That say we put ukraine in nato today, we are immediately faced with the choice, do we go to war . Article five doesnt actually say you go to war but you make measures deemed necessary. Interpreted we go to war. We violate article five under nothing for ukraine or do we enter into the war and have a Nuclear Crisis on our hands immediately. I think if you say for sure we put ukraine in nato when the war ends, what happens youre giving russia a huge incentive to continue to war. They did not want ukraine and nato. That is pretty clear. Well, as soon as youre done fighting, you get to come in. Well, russia has very little incentive to bargain. They can keep the war going at a low level as it is starting in 2014. That is the circumstance that ukraine and then. What the United States and other nato member should do should be blunt and clear with ukraine. Rather than kicking the can down the road. Look, we have shown we are not gonna out war, youre under attack. There is an anti sentence threat of the country. We didnt defend. What . Russia has nuclear weapons. We do not want to start world war iii. That would still be the case if they were nato and russia attacked them. Right . I think we have to admit, we are not gonna take that risk for you. What we will do is give you arms forever. We have, obviously, been very generous about. That we will support you in other ways to training. I think that will be fair and honest with ukraine. I think a lot of the frustration is we have been leading them down the primrose path with the 2008 nato said at the behest of george bush that they can join. Eventually i remember there were calls for the institution of a nofly zone. Nato putting up a nofly zone. Is that still something discussed or something on the table . Or is that just different, better, more advanced . Armor essentially i think it was floated by a bunch of people. Uk analyst and stuff. Clearly, the biden illustration and leaders dont want to do anything and then it went away. You did hear rumblings particularly from eastern europe, poland, lithuania. They tend to be the most caucus members of the alliance. Helping ukraine. Talking about, maybe, sending in their own troops. They have been pushing the agenda ascending in aircraft. Different things like that. I havent heard anything about a nofly zone. What are you watching for today on the second day of the summit . The first thing i want to watch for is if theres any change in with regards to commitments for ukraines eventual ascension to nato. A specific day in time aside. A firm commitment, stronger language than what we heard from our president. The other one is im watching to see the reaction for nato members from china sponsoring of. It the characterization of nato as an offensive organization. We heard this at the shangrila dialogue in early june. The reaction from asian nations there were delegations from nato countries, as well. Pretty forceful. Nobody looking to see if there is a continuation. First, a push back on a characterization there is some sort of defensive organization. There are some facts in history that dont bear out. The event continues today in the final. We are likely to continue in washington journal. Bryant sauber of the Heritage Foundation this International Offense Naval Warfare in advance technology there. Benjamin freeman and the director of policy if you want to join this conversation you can do. So phone lines, as, usual democrats it is 202 748 and 2000. Independents. We will be looking for your social media poised, as well. Mr. Freeman, commit to you. Going back to the summit we got the news that the way it was cleared for sweden to eventually can you bring us through the factor that . Can you explain how that . So we didnt and finland sort of operated of the pair. Finland is unique because they have this long history of neutrality. They have never been in nato. The war in russia kind of spurred them to reevaluate that and to rather quickly move towards membership alliance and a large part. To welcome them with open arms. With the exception of turkey. I guess the main objection turkey had to sweet and was there politics visavis who deemed terrorist, current. Sweden then reform their antiterrorism laws to placate turkey and it seems like maybe there was a new list of complaints. The resolution, it would appear, is that turkey got some sort of greater commitment, at least from sweden, to support a team membership. Whats interesting about it is the more you expand the alliance, the more v two players you have. Using that political power they have a nato to say, what are you gonna do for me to come . In to the f16 deal have anything to do with that . I think. So probably behind the scenes United States ed, look. We will stop holding up the f16s if you go along with this. I think the delay was erdogan holding out for a higher price for both sweden and the United States. I think it is unfortunately United States is paying the way for sweden to come into the alliance. We are paying, basically, for the privilege of defending another member of nato. I think sweden should pay if someone have to pay turkey city the people coming into the alliance. Why do we have to pay for everything . This is just another example. You are reading on this . What is sweden bringing to the alliance . Does it bring any liabilities . I am not as negative on the cost i think the f16s, clearly, it was part of the negotiating. It is not the issue but it certainly was one of the things that suite in the deal for erdogan. Basically relenting on sweden. Because of this issue, i think that is, really, the Central Point here. To a lesser extent the membership and the longstanding problem with turkeys had within the eu. Sweden, from a military perspective, the geography is not as favorable in the pushback and deterrence posture against russia. But it is still significant. The arctic issue, also, are helpful. It gives a stronger voice within nato into the Arctic Council antarctic issues. They do come with a significant military capability and Industrial Base that will add, it will be additive to nato overall. Certainly in the near term, that will be pronounced. I think, also, in the long term they bring credible. It must expand undo youve talked a couple times about watching china and their reaction. What about the reaction to the expansion of nato from 30 to soon to be 32 members . So, what you heard and shangrila dialogue coming from the defense minister and also members of their delegation, you are hearing it also today on the sidelines and press statements about the nato summit, is that they characterize it much like moscow does, as an offensive organization. And that argument does not hold much water, historically, or even in the posture. As i already mentioned, its an organization that takes consent to move forward on a new decision. A lot of countries to agree on the active policies like supporting ukraine. Its another thing if they were to actually try and agree unanimously to take some offensive action. Its not in its nature, not in its organizational structure and the history doesnt play it out. So, the chinese are this narrative and rhetoric because it does sometimes resonate in regions like in africa, the southeast asia. This nato summit as what we are talking about in this hour of the washington journal. Brent sadler, ben friedman, our guest this morning. Its taking place in lithuania. Why is it taking place in lithuania . Im not sure. I mean, there are an Alliance Farmer and that they tend to rotate where the events take place. So, vilniuss turn, i assume. But i want to Say Something quickly about china, which is, i think whats going on behind the scenes is several nato countries have been sending naval craft, frigates i think mostly, germany, the uk, france, to the South China Sea and even to taiwan straits. And trying to show some degree of support for the United States or even for taiwan, and i think nato itself has been saying, well we have, to do something about china and their official communiques. So, the chinese are shaking their fists and saying, look, you know, we dont want nato over here doing anything about taiwan. And i think its actually kind of silly. Nato is the northeast atlantic treaty organization. It has its hands full at the moment with russia. I think asia is basically a distraction. China is a distraction for nato and really ought to focus on the war in, you know, problems such as they are in europe. This meeting today, its a meeting of the North Atlantic Council within nato. Just kind of structural question, what is the North Atlantic Council . How does this work . Again, its just a subset within the wider nato organization. Different level decisionmaking process and deliberation of the simplest way to put it. And we may see some live pictures again, some of the events in this hour of the washington journal. Plenty of colors for you gentlemen already. We will go to john force in michigan. Independent, good morning. You are on with bryant sadler and ben friedman. Good morning. Yeah, the thing i was thinking about his now with having sweden in their, sweden has got some very nice fighter jets, from what ive heard. As well as also, when it comes to this deal over there in ukraine, they still havent gotten prigozhin figured out, where he is. I would imagine hes still in there doing some thinking happens to go off to the east and still bring some other troops. I still think hes mad at putin, so they might end up being potentially a war sign off to the east and potentially going after moscow. And that might end up bringing some of the fighters away from the Ukraine Border and potentially give a better chance for ukraine to potentially get some more footage. But i dont know, thats just my own thoughts. I know if i were prigozhin and still kind of upset with putin, that is what i would be potentially doing. Alrighty, well, thank you very much. Mr. Sadler, you want to answer . The whole thing with wagner and prigozhin is kind of like when you get one inside one layer of the union on the doll, there is like another layer to go into. Reports right now are that hes somewhere in russia. Saint petersburg, which is his center or base, or in some reports, unconfirmed also, that hes in moscow, which is whats really going on in his relationship with putin is up in question. Whats clear is wagner forces will continue to play an active and unfortunate role in african countries. I think increasingly in latin america, weve seen that. I dont think thats going to change. What will be interesting to watch is how people start to respond because on the books, these mercenary organizations are illegal. But that has not stopped the russian government and his regime from using them to great effect for political purposes in overseas. And again, just how the colors come and yeah, sweden does bring good fighter jets, also has submarines, and ukraine does need to have something to counter russias subsurface, their submarines that are launching caliber cruise missiles in the black sea. Right now, they have nothing to counter that threat. Mr. Friedman, not to get to too many but if wagner forces go to belarus, belarus has a long border with lithuania, and with poland. Nato members. How concerned is nato about a group like that being possibly right on the border . I think it would raise concerns, but, you know, its not exactly new, you know . Russia has come to belarus going into ukraine already. So, you have to look at belarus as sort of an unofficial ally of russia and thus, you know, potential venue for attacks. I think for various reasons, its pretty unlikely that russia would attack anytime soon a baltic state. I dont know about in the distant future, that might change. So, i think there is reason to be largely because theyve been so bogged down in ukraine, i think they got their hands full there and thats something. But you know, its definitely worth keeping an eye on. You know, the only thing i will say about prigozhin is that the, there were a lot of predictions when he was making his little run on moscow that this was the beginning of, you know, an insurgency or civil war in russia. That seems reasonable for about 24 hours, but basically, putin made a phone call and made it go away. And so, i dont see a ton of evidence that putin is tottering. I mean, certainly, it isnt good. Not good for russians, not good for putin to have that kind of instability going on. Probably not good to see nato expand once again. Yeah, they dont like that at all. But, you know, at the same time, theres no obvious candidate to take over for putin. Even in a coup, right, prigozhin doesnt seem like the guy. So, i think people get a little over excited because they dislike russia so much, naturally about oh, hes about to fall. I dont see a lot of evidence for that. Lets go to seattle, washington, line for democrats, good morning. Good morning, thank you for taking my call. I want to skew it a little bit. Im pretty elderly, but im still right. And into history, especially now. I graduated from the university of washington in seattle, a very respectable, important university, and i majored in general studies, which i wish more students would do now. Anyway, i studied russia quite a bit and in fact, in the 50s, had to really be careful what i said, sponsoring professor had to tone me down a little bit because, you know, the 50s, well anyway, how would we feel if, for instance, the Philippine Islands want to go back to spain or whatever . Proximity is something. It was presented then in the 50s as belarus was really, is, part of russia. Also, you know, just look on the map. That was their bread basket. The good soil, the vegetables, the wonderful crops. So, burnley to the war in ukraine, what is your question . My question is, first taiwan is so close also to russia, i think we are greedy and not thinking of others, and i think thats very important, and does anybody see how im trying to make my point . Mr. Settler, are we being greedy here . No, i definitely take the colors point. And i think history does lets go first with eastern europe. Many of those countries, even going back to imperial russians and through the First World War and the bolsheviks, many of these countries, there is a reason why they were very adamant about joining nato. They did not want to have history repeat. There is a living history still in many of those countries of the oppression under the soviets and also communist domination throughout the cold war, and they do not want to go back to that. And so, the United States western countries, in some cases, have been a little too slow to respond to those that know well the nature of the russian regime. And the same is true in asia with china. Many of those countries have suffered under war, Imperial Japan under world war ii, but theyve also seen what mounted on china and the dangers, the fear that they have. Theyre very real. Taiwan, most notably, in that regard. And so, countries like south korea, japan, taiwan, the philippines, they all came to the United States seeking a military security arrangement that would secure their borders. And it was, because it was under National Self interest. It wasnt voiced it on to them and the reason why Police Security arrangements still persist, despite our differences, is because our National Interest and the popular will of these countries all align so well. Thats why you are seeing right now Popular Movement in mueller right now to reinvigorate u. S. Military presence in the philippines. Because theyre people see a fear and a threat of, to their territorial integrity from china, and incursions. Its not because the United States wants to push them into a more forceful, muscular position. Yeah, they are trying to do that for its own interest since the late 90s and until the 2000s, but only in recent past because the filipinos want it. Taiwanese people wanted. Anything you want to add . I fundamentally disagree that its a good idea to expand u. S. Military alliances everywhere, that somebody asks you to. You know, yeah, they want to join, they want free security, they want helpless security from the United States. Whether or not that is a good idea is a different question. Our interests are not the same. Whats an example of a place we shouldnt go that monster . Well, george cannon, the great before he died said that expanding nato beyond the cold war states was a mistake of historic proportions, and i think hes right. I think thats been proved out. I think it was a terrible mistake to expand nato into eastern europe, as we did, closer and closer to russia. And what was predicted by cannon and other people, lots of people in the 90s, and so forth, was that this would juice russias sort of imperial ambitions. Not that this was necessarily a direct threat to russia, but that it would make russia think, you are going to try to take away our little brothers. So, make them more possessive. I think thats basically what happened with ukraine is they said, you know, you guys are creeping towards ukraine with nato and we are going to take it back before you can take it from us, so that nato expansion, as was predicted, helped. Was not the only thing, but helped cause the war in ukraine. So, the United States was not responsible for that, but we were reckless. And so, i think nato expansion is something that should have stopped a long time ago. So, regardless of how this war ends, whether every inch of ukrainian territory is liberated or if theres some negotiated settlement, we have said it now at some point down the road, ukraine will join nato. What does that mean for the next war . Well, weve said the door remains open to ukraine joining. But as we talked about, they dont have a date. So, i think its far from a sure thing. Again, theres 30 plus members of nato now, they all have to say yes. So, including hungary. So, are all those numbers going to say yes ukraine at any point in the foreseeable future . I find it hard to imagine. And i think a lot of the essence of the other countries, including the United States, are a little soft, that we are sort of saying yes on paper something we dont actually expect to have happen. Certainly, i think thats germanys position. So, i wouldnt count on that. By the way, this nato have an official and that they want to see in ukraine . Is it every inch of territory liberated . Is it a negotiated settlement . Do they have an official position . So, the position appears to be, and again, theres some margin along the edges of this, and thats the return back to the full territorial integrity of ukraine. This is the 94 agreement. So, that would be crimea, crimea is, of course, the donbas. Now, theres an interesting history. Things shouldve probably played out differently with regards to crimea. Perhaps a deeper conversation your colleagues want to talk about crimea specifically, but it is what it is. The agreement, the treaty, and the recognized borders of ukraine, 94, you know, restoring that. But i think whats very important and its important even for all the leaders of nato to continue to echo that and its war between moscow and kyiv. And so, the terms or the conditions for how that war has ended, the voice from kyiv has to play very large. Its not for the United States or nato to dictate, the terms of what the end of this war would be. Of course, its in our National Interest and that should always reign supreme as to how that, you know, inform to influence what that condition is, of course. About halfway through our conversation, plenty of colors for you, gentlemen. This is dave in hale, michigan. Independent. Good morning. Yes, good morning, gentlemen. I have just a couple of general questions that might sound kind of dumb in my respect, because i dont keep up too much. But is their term limits as these countries join nato . About whether, you know, has the elections go, can they come and go as they want, are there term limits . Are there some agreements that they will stay with nato for a certain period of time . Thats question number one. Number two, seeing how north and south korea, we have a demilitarized zone, would there eventually be a conversations of a demilitarized zone, as we get more and more borders against russia . Thats my questions to both of you. Thank you very much. Mr. Friedman, you want to start . Sure. I guess first on the demilitarized zone, i mean, i dont think that is likely, but ukraine has long been seen as a kind of buffer between, you know, nato and russia. So, i think regardless of what happens, whether or not its nato serves that function, i think ukraine is proving that they are very good at that, that largely because russia is impressively incompetent, they have shown that in ukraine, and ukraine is able to stop them. So, i think whether or not we call it a dmz or Something Like that, they have no ability to be no buffer. What was the first question again . Im sorry. It was on nato terms. Whether countries can come and go. Right, no. There are no terms what our country can always leave an alliance to, you know, official act, i think it would take the u. S. Senate here. But on the other hand, you know, you could always just say, you know, we are not doing this anymore, even if you are officially in it. And kind of quit. But you cant throw people out because the functions by consensus. So, now and then people will Say Something like, weve got to throw turkey out, but how are you going to get turkey to agree to be thrown out . But what you could do is just say, look, as a political matter, we are not planning to defend them anymore. We are not applying article five to them or Something Like that. And what about not living up to obligations . The numbers right now, 11 of the alliances, 31 countries, or meeting their existing commitment to spend 2 of gdp on defense. No, this goes back to the record not bearing out nato as inherently offensive organization. In fact, it is led to an atrophy of many of these western European Countries defense Industrial Base our own. So, because they see that they have . They benefit. They see that nato coat to protect them . Thats right, they see strength and numbers, didnt see a threat that really merited reaction. Now, ukraine and putins actions are, in the last year, have actually changed that. And so, you are seeing some of these countries that, notorious for not spending their full do, starting to get on a trajectory to actually achieve that. Whether or not that actually holds true, it takes years to give a large economy like germany, itll take years to grow to 2 , where you need to be, defense. So, its going to be something that has to be watched and slow and steady progress to get to that 2 . But its been a wake up call across europe that great power of conflict, major war is a reality in this world. It is not something left in the historical dustbin. They are realizing they dont have the munitions, they dont have the equipment to defend their own borders, let alone meet their obligations of nato. This was something that donald trump got a lot of attention for four prodding nato members to try to live up to their obligations. Was he correct in doing it . Well, i think that he was not actually unique in that. There is a long history of president s and secretaries of defense famously saying similar things, only more politely. Trump had a more unique way of doing it, i guess. Uniquely rude way of doing it, but he was saying something pretty similar. Content wise to what other people had said and so, yeah, that is old. I would just say that i think that its, i mean, i agree with brandt that there was free writing by nato allies and the United States is protecting you dont have to do very much. And russias attack on ukraine, both in 2014 and especially in 22, helped change that, to a degree. But im not sure that there is a lot of followthrough. So, you know, you had germany say were going to spend 100 billion euros extra and it turns out thats happening very slowly. They said, we will get to 2 . Turns out, maybe next year. So, theyre kind of kicking the can down the road on that. And nato said, we are going to have you once stoltenberg came right out and said, were going to go from 40,000 already force made up of different countries, military, to 300,000. And then silence. I havent heard anything about even at the summit about getting to that 300,000 of ready force that can go somewhere and fight a war. So, and i think the reason for all of that is, twofold. One, they looked and said, look, the United States is still carrying us. They sent 20,000 new forces to europe, so now we have 100,000 about. And, you know, we are doing aligned share of the aid to ukraine and secondly, the second reason is, as i said before, russia bogged down ukraine. They cant get across the dnipro river, let alone, you know, over to poland or Something Like that. So, the threat, i think, if youre sitting in berlin, is not as great as you maybe thought it was back in february, 2022. So, it sort of makes sense that they would say, okay, were not in as much of a rush to get to 2 or Something Like that. Whats the role of a secretary general of nato and is Jens Stoltenberg going to go down as an effective, a strong secretary general . I think so far, his track record has been very effective, from my perspective, and watching how the performance has been for support. Again, this is not nato support, its not nato acting to support ukraine. Its another collective of likeminded countries of providing and getting munitions. But his support and his ushering in finland and hopefully sweden shortly, and maybe in the near future, you know, setting out a very explicit track for ukraine to come into nato, i think that will be what hes judged on in the future. Right now, its looking like hes been very effective. Do you agree . No. I think he has an impossible job, you know . To get consensus among 30 plus members. Its more or less impossible, so i think hes done a good job kind of, you know, lassoing the different parts of nato and moving forward on those expansions, as we just heard. But, you know, i dont agree with him on the policy wise. Hes a big advocate of adding new members. Im less concerned about sweden and finland but, you know, he seems to be really interested in putting ukraine in, which i think is a horrible idea. You know, nato expanded for two montenegro under his watch, which, you know, is not deeply harmful, its pretty pointless to me. So, you know, i dont agree with him on policy very much. Hes very into this idea that nato should be doing something about china, which i disagree with. So, you know, he was effective in the things hes doing, but i dont agree with a lot of what hes doing. Youve got randy in kentucky. Republicans line. Good morning. Good morning, thank you. You have a country there, russia, thats about the size and population as the country of mexico. Are we just wanting to try to colonize everybody in the world . Are we wanting that we think that russia is large enough to take over the world, for europe, or whatever . Are we just trying to make sure that we take away all of their security and the defense around their country . I dont know. I mean, it just seems like that we are so aggressive on things that we do around the world, we cause so much trouble. Maybe its just me. But i thought that we didnt like colonizing the world. I thought that we wanted to get away from all of that, it was a bad thing. Mr. Sadler . Yeah, colonization is expensive and doesnt really help National Interest very well. So, i dont see that certainly not in my living memory going back to the early 80s and mid 70s at something that the United States policies or in his best interest. That being said, the russian regime, soviet, and now under putin, the nature of this has actually been one of brutal ism. And that has played out the Eastern European allies that we have their, theyve called for much more unified approach, pushback through membership of nato, because theyve lived under the oak of the soviets and the russians. So, they know what they are dealing with. They are looking to the United States and other allies to actually help assure their security and their sovereignty. So, thats first and foremost whats really going on and when you listen to, unfortunately, it doesnt get enough play when you listen to what their experience is, there is a reason. The Prime Minister from estonia said it very well at shangrila dialogue about their experience and what they think the future importance of having ukraine and nato is, and why the movement for finland and sweden was so important, because they understand the nature of what they are dealing with in the Russian Strategic culture and psyche. The other thing is, when you look across the world at these, and you see reports of u. S. Activities, most of it is reactive. That is unfortunate because that leads to waste, that leads to bad decisions, and it leads to unnecessary suffering. Human suffering, too often. The United States needs to be more proactive that goes after his National Interest first and foremost. But id also point out that russia martian military organizations like wagner that are active in venezuela, theres a presence in chinese and russians in cuba, once again, its becoming of interest. There is weakening of regimes and working through proxies in africa, african countries, thats also harmful to u. S. Interests and also untold human suffering. And just to point out, again, while russia may not have the military might to take over ukraine, at large, or to threaten western europe, it can threaten wholesale destruction and a lot of human misery. Longrange missiles, its weapons systems, and that may be enough work to get what it wants and meet its own self interest. Its important to actually make clear to moscow that that is not something that they can get away with, that they will not be able to suffer significant consequences. If they do go down that path. Mr. Friedman, you were jotting down some notes during that . I dont agree with the caller about the word colonialism. I would use a different word, but i agree with the collars overall direction. You know, i think there is a dominant idea in the United States, particularly here in washington, that the way we achieve security we will leave this washington journal discussion here and take you live back to capitol hill now, to continue our coverage of fbi director Christopher Wrays testimony on lettuces asian of his history. Its members of this house judiciary committee. Many members slowly filtering back into the room. Director w