Assessing the Challenges Facing NATO

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                      ASSESSING THE CHALLENGES FACING NATO56=======================================================================78                                HEARING910                                 OF THE1112                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE1314                               BEFORE THE1516                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS17                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES1819                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2021                             FIRST SESSION2223                               __________2425                              June 4, 20252627                               __________2829                           Serial No. 119-213031                               __________3233        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs3435 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3637Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov, http://docs.house.gov,38                       or http://www.govinfo.gov3940                                __________4142                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4361-400 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20254445-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4647                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS4849                    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Chairman50MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York,51CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey         Ranking Member52JOE WILSON,, South Carolina          BRAD SHERMAN, California53SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia54DARRELL ISSA, California             WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts55TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              AMI BERA, California56MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee             JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas57ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  DINA TITUS, Nevada58RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 TED LIEU, California59YOUNG KIM, California                SARA JACOBS, California60MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,61BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan                  Florida62AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       GREG STANTON, Arizona63    American Samoa                   JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida64WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois65JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California66THOMAS H. KEAN, JR, New Jersey       JIM COSTA, California67MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             GABE AMO, Rhode Island68CORY MILLS, Florida                  KWEISI MFUME, Maryland69RICHARD McCORMICK, Georgia           PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington70KEITH SELF, Texas                    GEORGE LATIMER, New York71RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana               JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI Jr, Maryland72JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                JULIE JOHNSON, Texas73ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida           SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware74JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana            BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois75SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania76MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington77RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania7879              James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director80                 Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director81                                 ------8283                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE8485                       KEITH SELF, Texas, Chairman86 MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas            WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts,87 JOE WILSON, South Carolina              Ranking Member88 MARK GREEN, Tennessee                DINA TITUS, Nevada89 YOUNG KIM, California                JIM COSTA, California90 WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                GABE AMO, Rhode Island91 ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida           JULIE JOHNSON, Texas92                                      SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware9394               Michael Koren, Subcommittee Staff Director9596                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S9798                              ----------99100                            REPRESENTATIVES101102                                                                   Page103Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Keith Self............     1104Opening Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member William Keating.     2105106                               WITNESSES107108Statement of Rear Admiral (Retired) Mark Montgomery, Ccti Senior109  Director and Senior Fellow, Foundation for The Defense of110  Democracies....................................................     4111  Prepared Statement.............................................     7112Statement of Nile Gardiner, Director, Margaret Thatcher Center113  for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation...........................    21114  Prepared Statement.............................................    23115Statement of Hon. Julianne Smith, Former U.S. Permanent116  Representative to Nato, U.S. Department of State...............    27117  Prepared Statement.............................................    29118119                                APPENDIX120121Hearing Notice...................................................    60122Hearing Minutes..................................................    61123Hearing Attendance...............................................    62124125                        Material for the Record126127Rep. Davidson material for the record............................    63128129                        Questions for the Record130131Questions to Mark Montgomery submitted by Chairman Keith Self....    73132Questions to Nile Gardiner submitted by Chairman Keith Self......    76133Questions to Julianne Smith submitted by Chairman Keith Self.....    78134135                  ASSESSING THE CHALLENGES FACING NATO136137                              ----------138139                        Wednesday, June 4, 2025140141                  House of Representatives,142                             Subcommittee on Europe143                              Committee on Foreign Affairs,144                                                    Washington, DC.145146    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in147room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Keith Self148(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.149    Mr. Self. The Subcommittee on Europe will come to order.150The purpose of this hearing is to provide members with an151informed perspective of the U.S. policy toward NATO and an152opportunity to discuss NATO's trajectory in advance of the June153summit in The Hague.154    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.155156            OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN KEITH SELF157158    The Hague will be focused on funding for NATO. This first159chart--and would you put it up and blow it up as much as you160can-shows the NATO nations. They are listed top to bottom by161GDP. They are listed on the right side by the percentage that162they provide. Can you blow that up more?163    Okay, so I want to just talk you through this. Of course164U.S. is at the top, almost $29 trillion in GDP. Then you go165down to Germany, U.K., France, Italy, Canada, and Spain. Down166here you have got the front-line countries, you have got167Lithuania, you have got Latvia, you have got Estonia. Some of168the Balkan countries are down below.169    The ones that I want to point--and the summit tells us that170they are going to be going above 3 percent.171    So I want to point out right here, we have got some, the172major economies in NATO, specifically France, Italy, and173Canada, that are well below--Italy, Canada, and Spain, I am174sorry, that are well below their current 2 percent of175commitment. These are major economies, this is a major change176that needs to happen at the summit. Next slide.177    Now, just a couple of comparisons. This compares Poland to178everyone else on the Eastern Flank, the Eastern Flank being179defined as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, and180Hungary. Poland has a GDP of about $840 billion. Eastern Flank181is 890. So they are not dissimilar.182    The defense budgets are quite a bit dissimilar. Their183percentage, though, Poland is at over 4 percent currently and184going higher. The Eastern Flank is at 2.36 and going higher,185and it has already committed to go higher. Next slide.186    And one more just to give you an idea of where funding in187NATO stands, this is Germany versus the Eastern Flank. So we188have added Poland to the east of Germany. So Germany has the1894.6, Eastern Flank has 1.7. Here are the defense budgets. Look190at this: the Eastern Flank is providing a higher percentage191than Germany is.192    So my point in all of these three slides is there is work193to do in the summit later this month. Now, I know that people194have made commitments, but what you just saw were 2024, the195last we had a full year's funding toward NATO. That is a major196problem that I wanted to highlight. We have got other issues in197this briefing, but that is the one that I wanted to start with.198    The first thing we have to start with is everyone pulling199their weight in NATO. With that, I yield back, and I recognize200the ranking member----201    Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman?202    Mr. Self. Mr. Keating.203    Mr. Costa. Can I make a question inquiry to the chair?204Those are important charts that you just presented. Could you205make copies so that we could look at them here and----206    Mr. Self. Let's have copies made so----207    Mr. Costa. Shouldn't be that difficult for the staff.208    Mr. Self. And pass out. Absolutely, so we can do it now,209Okay.210    Mr. Costa. Okay, thank you.211    Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Costa, we will do that.212    Mr. Keating. I don't know if this is working. How is this?213Oh, good, all right, here we go. Thank you.214215      OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER WILLIAM KEATING216217    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this218important hearing today, and I want to thank our witnesses for219their participation in today's hearing.220    More than 75 years ago in the wake of World War II, the221North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established to forge a222safe, secure, and prosperous transatlantic alliance. From its223inception, NATO's founding charter and its Article 5 principle224of collective defense have been the underpinning of our225national security and that of our European partners as well.226    We saw this in action after 9/11, when our allies227sacrificed treasure and blood in our defense. NATO's necessity228came into full view in February 2022, when the Russian229Federation initiated a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Since230the invasion, NATO has marshaled billions of dollars in231military support to the Ukrainians, who have defended the front232line of freedom at great human cost.233    During the 2024 Washington Summit, support of Ukraine234within NATO was clear as allies agreed that Russia remains the235most significant and direct threat to the security of the236alliance. Just 1 year later, the Russian threat to NATO remains237all-oppressing and the more real.238    At that summit, NATO allies also agreed to increase defense239spending to build on the alliance deterrence. Countries like240Poland and the Baltic States have well exceeded the 2-percent241mark, while others, like the United Kingdom and Germany, have242committed to pass legislation to ensure their defense spending243increases in accordance with the alliance's requirements.244    Meanwhile, other countries have lagged behind the 2-percent245mark, and it is absolutely imperative that all allies commit to246adequate defense spending levels at the upcoming NATO summit in247The Hague.248    Unfortunately, NATO continues to face serious threats to249its security. The Trump administration, its policy toward NATO250has been inconsistent and chaotic. It is no wonder that the251alliance is just confused about where Trump and his cabinet are252in these critical issues.253    On the war in Ukraine, Trump's Secretary of State has said254Russia started it. Meanwhile, President Trump said Ukraine255started it. Trump's Secretary of the Treasury says Putin is a256war criminal. Trump's chief negotiator for Russia, Steve257Witkoff, said Putin is not a bad guy, and that he is258trustworthy.259    Secretary of State often said Putin was a war criminal.260When I questioned him 2 weeks ago, Secretary of State wouldn't261say that. At the United Nations, the Trump administration262abandoned our allies on a resolution, siding with Russia,263Belarus, and North Korea. It is no wonder Trump's Ambassador to264Ukraine, Bridget Brink, resigned, citing policy disagreements.265    As we approach the 76th NATO summit in The Hague later this266month, the Trump administration must take advantage of the267opportunity and set the record straight.268    First, the administration must not step back from its269leadership role in NATO. Reported proposals to abandon the270Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, their European position,271or reduce the focus that is there in the force posture in272Europe, because any of this will do nothing but harm the273deterrent effect of our alliance.274    Second, the Trump administration must continue to encourage275allies and partners to spend more on defense. I know this276sentiment is bipartisan, and I want to thank Secretary General277Rutte for, as well as former Secretary General Stoltenberg and278Ambassador Smith, for your work on doing this in the previous279administration.280    Third, the Trump administration must make clear at the281upcoming NATO summit that the United States and the entire282alliance is prepared to increase the cost on Russia for its283ongoing war of aggression in Ukraine.284    This must start with acknowledging the facts on the ground,285something that the Secretary of State was unable to do when he286testified before this committee last month. This includes287telling the truth. Russia is the aggressive State. Vladimir288Putin is a war criminal who has carried out atrocious crimes in289Ukraine, including the kidnaping of 20,000 children.290    And the United States must hold the Kremlin accountable for291this war and the horrific crimes Russia has committed in its292wake. Anything less represents a failure of American leadership293and an inability to uphold key American values.294    Finally, the Trump administration must buildupon the prior295administration's effort to expand NATO's relationship with the296Indo-Pacific countries. Russia's war in Ukraine has a direct297implication on the Taiwan Strait, and ensuring robust298relationships with our Indo-Pacific allies is vitally important299for this transatlantic relationship.300    I want to thank our witnesses again for being here, and I301yield back the balance of my time.302    Mr. Self. Other members of the committee are reminded that303opening statements may be submitted for the record.304    We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses305before us today on this important topic. I was extremely306impressed with the written testimony of all three.307    I would like to start and introduce and Rear Admiral308(Retired) Mark Montgomery, CCTI Senior Director and Senior309Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.310    Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.311312                STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL MONTGOMERY313314    Admiral Montgomery. Chairman Self, Ranking Member Keating,315distinguished members of the committee, on behalf of the316Foundation for Defense of Democracies, thank you for having me317here to testify.318    Look, we are here to discuss the future of NATO, the319alliance that successfully led the western democracies through320the cold war and the U.S. triumph over the Soviet Union.321    And I think that while the political, security, and322economic dynamics have changed markedly over the past 30 years,323I firmly believe that NATO can still serve as the organizing324principle that guides the transatlantic alliance through the325challenges posed by a really rapacious, authoritarian State,326Russia, as well as the Chinese-led axis of aggressors that327really supports and enables Russia.328    For far too long, many of our NATO allies have ignored329these threats. They have failed to invest in the alliance.330Chairman Self's diagram showed you that. They have even failed331to invest in their own defense. And warnings by successive332Republican and Democratic presidents went unheeded for 30333years.334    However, thanks to Vladimir Putin's violent military335aggression against Ukraine and its persistent efforts to336undermine democratic governments in the Balkans and throughout337Eastern Europe, and combined with President Trump's vocal338complaints about European defense spending, we are starting to339see NATO members finally stepping out to the plate.340    I, too, appreciate Secretary General Mark Rutte as he has341directed NATO member-he anticipates now that NATO members will342agree to increase their defense spending target to 5 percent of343gross domestic product, GDP, at the NATO summit in June. This344increased spending is essential, and President Trump has been345right to call out the previous European apathy on this issue.346    And that reason is because Russian and Chinese threats347challenge the territorial integrity, democratic stability, and348economic prosperity of NATO. Neither Russia nor China will be349cajoled or coddled into compliance or even peaceful350coexistence. And both Europe and America need to recognize that351we are in a long-term fight with the axis of aggressors.352    But between these two authoritarians, the chief threat to353peace and democracy in Europe is Russia. And Putin is not some354misunderstood regional leader or an aggrieved actor reacting to355NATO expansion. He is instead a stone-cold killer. He has356launched wars of conquest, invading his neighbors three times357in the past 20 years.358    He has ruthlessly and violently crushed democratic359movements growing in his hinterlands. And he is currently360harassing, torturing, and murdering his domestic critics.361    If NATO is going to prevail against this Russian menace, it362is going to need U.S. leadership. It is going to need European363defense investments. And it is going to need collective action364to punish its adversaries.365    My written testimony covered ten recommendations to achieve366success. I would like to highlight five of them here. First is367the one Chairman Self highlighted: we need to establish and368maintain NATO defense spending targets at 5 percent of GDP.369    NATO's national governments, even those not within range of370Russia's long-range fires, must commit to Secretary General371Rutte's proposed new spending pledge of 3.5 percent of the GDP372on defense and another 1.5 percent on defense enablers, like373their industrial base, infrastructure protection, and cyber374security. This includes the United States.375    Second, we need to act to protect the critical376infrastructure essential to NATO's military mobility. Moving377troops and equipment efficiently over land, sea, and air is378essential to NATO's ability to project power and sustain forces379to fight and win our wars.380    European countries must prioritize critical infrastructure381spending to align with NATO's war plans, not their domestic382plans, particularly as it relates to flowing U.S., U.K., and383French forces into and through Europe.384    Third, we need to maintain U.S. enablers and force posture385in Europe. NATO strength is measured by how quickly it can move386and fight. That speed depends on U.S. enablers, our strategic387lift, our operational logistics, our intelligence, our command-388and-control infrastructures.389    These are capabilities that no other NATO ally can provide.390That is why forward-stationing U.S. forces and equipment across391Europe is essential to NATO's warfighting capacity. The answer392to this challenge from Russia is not for America to do less,393but for Europe to do more.394    Fourth, we need to arm Ukraine to defend itself and survive395and not force Ukraine to agree to an unacceptable cease-fire396negotiated under duress, or even worse, to lose the war.397    And Ukraine needs two things above all else. First, they398need constant U.S. intelligence support. And second, they need399access to the American-made munitions for them or for Europe to400purchase.401    And then fifth, we have to punish Russia for its402aggression. Putin will only change his calculus if the cost of403continuing the war becomes unsustainable for him. The United404States and Europe must increase pressure and impose costs on405Russia by ramping up sanctions on the Russian war machine,406starting with its energy revenues and the shadow fleet of407fossil fuel deliverers that support that.408    In summary, I think we need a comprehensive transatlantic409effort: defense budget that reflect today's challenges, the410resilience to withstand assaults from adversaries, and a clear-411eyed commitment to the alliance. If we have those three pillars412in place, the United States and its European allies will once413again prevail over the forces that threaten peace and security,414both in Europe and globally.415    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look416forward to your questions.417    [The prepared statement of Admiral Montgomery follows:]418    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT419420    Mr. Self. Thank you, Admiral. We had a clock malfunction,421just like they do in basketball games. But thank you for your422testimony.423    I now introduce Dr. Nile Gardiner, Director of the Margaret424Thatcher Center for Freedom and Bernard and Barbara Lomas425Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.426    Welcome, sir. You are recognized for 5 minutes.427428                   STATEMENT OF NILE GARDINER429430    Mr. Gardiner. My name is Nile Gardiner, I am the Director431of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage432Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own.433My remarks today are a summary of my written statement.434    NATO remains the essential force that holds back the435Russian bear on its eastern flank and keeps in check the436imperialist ambitions of Vladimir Putin's murderous regime. Its437role is vital in the defense of Europe in the face of Russian438aggression.439    Without NATO, the brutal reality is that Russian forces440would very likely today be rolling into the Baltic States and441deep into Europe. We should not underestimate Putin's442malevolent intentions and his desire to conquer further443territory in Europe.444    To sustain the alliance, America's NATO allies must fully445participate in burden-sharing with the United States. The Trump446presidency is rightly applying pressure on America's allies to447do far more to foster true partnership rather than dependency,448especially as the U.S. must increasingly focus on the immense449threat from communist China in the Indo-Pacific.450    This cannot be a two-tier alliance where the United States451carries the overwhelming military burden for the defense of the452free world while some European allies build vast welfare453states. In 2024, only 22 NATO members spent the 2-percent of454GDP on defense agreed to by the alliance in 2014. This is455hugely irresponsible.456    This includes some of the biggest nations in NATO,457including Italy, Spain, and Canada. Last year, Canada458embarrassingly spent just 1.4 percent of GDP on defense, a459shockingly low figure for the world's tenth largest economy.460    As Heritage Foundation research has shown, European NATO461members have collectively underfunded their own defense by $827462billion since 2014, nearly equal to the entire annual U.S.463defense budget. This is a staggering figure.464    As NATO leaders gather shortly in The Hague, there is,465however, growing cause for optimism. President Trump's tough-466love strategy has made a tremendous impact. In just the first467few months of his presidency, Donald Trump has already468significantly strengthened the resolve of the NATO alliance.469    President Trump is not the destroyer of NATO, as his470critics allege, but the savior of NATO. Trump's presidency is a471wake-up call for a complacent alliance that had been472sleepwalking to decline and possible self-destruction.473    Thanks to U.S. leadership today, which was strikingly474absent under Joe Biden, who was barely in command on the world475stage, the complacency of past decades has been thrown out of476the window.477    Since Donald Trump took office in January, there has been a478dramatic change of approach among our 31 NATO partners,479including Europe's economic powerhouse of Germany, with nearly480every European NATO member announcing plans to significantly481increase defense spending, enhance overall military482capabilities, and grow the defense industrial base. This is the483Trump effect in action across the Atlantic.484    But words are not enough. It is time for all of American's485NATO allies to make a firm commitment to immediately match486America's current spending level of 3.5 percent of GDP and487pledge to raise defense spending to 5 percent of GDP.488    The U.S. also cannot allow NATO to be undercut by grandiose489visions of a European Union army that would split the alliance490and divert vital resources away from NATO. One of the biggest491threats to the future of NATO is posed by French President492Emmanuel Macron's calls for greater strategic autonomy for493Europe, moving away from the United States and moving closer to494an accommodation with Beijing.495    The United States must fight the flawed notion that496Europe's security rests upon delusional ideas of a militarily497powerful EU which would replace NATO nation-State cooperation498with Brussels-imposed sovereign nationalism. Macron's perilous499rhetoric is exactly what Russian President Vladimir Putin and500Chinese Premier Xi Jinping wish to hear.501    The U.S. should also strongly opposed the massively502reckless and incredibly dangerous decision taken by Britain's503socialist government, led by Keir Starmer, to hand over direct504control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a close Chinese505ally. The islands are the home of the vital Anglo-American506military base of Diego Garcia.507    This is a major gift to communist China at Britain's508expense and greatly undermines U.S. strategic interests and509NATO cohesion. The Chagos surrender is the worst foreign policy510move by a British prime minister in the modern era, and a511betrayal of the U.S.-U.K. special relationship.512    In conclusion, the United States has a significant national513interest in supporting a strong NATO alliance. A secure Europe514and a robust transatlantic alliance greatly advances the515security of the American people.516    American exceptionalism is the most powerful force for517liberty in the world today. It is greatly strengthened by518American's alliances, and NATO is at the very heart of the519transatlantic partnership. Thank you.520    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gardiner follows:]521    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT522523    Mr. Self. Thank you, sir. I now recognize Hon. Julianne524Smith, former U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO at the U.S.525State Department. Recognized for 5 minutes.526527                STATEMENT OF MS. JULIANNE SMITH528529    Ms. Smith. Chairman Self, Ranking Member Keating, members530of the committee, thank you for the opportunity today to speak531to you about NATO.532    For more than 75 years, NATO has been the bedrock of533transatlantic security. From the cold war to the Balkans, from534counterterrorism to cyber defense, the alliance has535consistently adapted to meet new challenges. Yet NATO's536enduring strength lies not only in its military might, but in537the shared values of its members and their collective538commitment to defend one another.539    For these past decades, NATO has superbly served both U.S.540and European interests by keeping the peace in Europe, which541allowed our economies to boom. In recent years, NATO has542undergone one of its most significant transformations in543decades.544    In response to Russia's vicious invasion of Ukraine, the545alliance has shown historic unity and resolve. Every single546member of the alliance has offered economic, humanitarian, or547military support to Ukraine. And NATO launched a new NATO548Ukraine council to enable Ukraine to sit at the table as an549equal partner.550    NATO also welcomed two new members, Finland and Sweden, and551on the Eastern Flank, NATO established for new multinational552battalions, bolstering the alliance's forward defense posture553from the Baltic to the Black Sea.554    At the same time, NATO has expanded its partnerships in the555Indo-Pacific. That reflects our shared recognition that556security challenges like cyber-attacks are increasingly global.557In 2022, NATO mentioned China in its strategic concept for the558very first time. And most critically, we have seen a striking559rise in European defense spending.560    Allies are investing more in their own security. Today, 23561allies spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense, up from six562just 4 years ago. That momentum is set to accelerate.563    Later this month, NATO leaders will gather in The Hague for564their annual summit. Allies are expected to announce a new565commitment to spend 3.5 percent of GDP on hard defense and566another 1.5 percent on related items like infrastructure. This567is very good news.568    For decades, Europeans have under-invested in their own569security, and due to Europe's generous military support to570Ukraine in recent years, the current capability gaps in Europe571are acute. We should celebrate this progress, but we must also572be clear-eyed about some of the associated challenges, and let573me mention just three.574    First, more money alone will not fix the fragmentation of575Europe's defense industrial base. Without meaningful work to576coordinate procurement, standardize requirements, and deepen577defense industrial cooperation, this influx of funding runs the578risk of simply reinforcing the inefficiencies that have long579plagued European defense.580    Consider tanks. Unlike the U.S., which fields a single main581battle tank, the M1, NATO's European members have more than a582dozen different types of tanks. This kind of fragmentation583complicates joint operations, undermines NATO's cohesion, and584slows production and procurement. NATO must ensure that585increased spending leads to increased capability, not just586duplicated or siloed efforts.587    Second, spending needs a strategy, and right now the588alliance lacks a coherent approach to dealing with Russia589beyond deterrence. NATO's long-term posture remains unsettled,590and so do our collection objectives regarding Moscow.591    NATO allies created a plan to tackle such questions when592they committed last year to unveil a new Russia strategy during593this year's summit in The Hague. But the alliance paused work594on that strategy for fear that it might not reach consensus in595the current political climate.596    That was a mistake. Without a clearly articulated and597forward-looking Russia strategy, we risk losing the political598rationale for sustained investment.599    Finally, the alliance today is grappling with a growing600trust deficit, which is quietly shaping the way that allies601approach increased defense spending. Many European governments602worry that U.S. support for NATO is now conditional and subject603to sudden shifts.604    Some allies worry about the recent U.S. shift away from605support for Ukraine. These new uncertainties are leading allies606to hedge their bets. Instead of making bold, long-term607investments in shared NATO capabilities or better co-production608efforts with the United States, some allies are focusing solely609on capabilities made in Europe.610    Unless this trust gap is addressed directly with steady611U.S. leadership, transparency, and a shared strategic vision,612America's security will be undermined and the alliance as a613whole will risk missing the full potential of the current614momentum.615    In sum, NATO remains the most successful military alliance616in history, and it is crucial to both U.S. and European617security. But the way we manage this moment will define the618next generation of transatlantic security.619    We must lead with vision, with principle, with humility.620And we must invest wisely and anchor our efforts in strategy621and solidarity.622    Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.623    [The prepared statement of Ms. Smith follows:]624    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT625626    Mr. Self. Thank you very much for three strong testimoneys.627I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.628    I want to start with, yes, I want to start with what I629think is one of the most unstable areas of NATO, and that is in630the Western Balkans. As you know, or may not know, General631Cavoli told me in my recent visit with him that Bosnia and632Herzegovina could collapse overnight.633    And you may remember back in 1999, NATO in actually their634first operation, went to war for Kosovo by bombing Serbia. We635now have, and if you look at the map, you have Slovenia, you636have Croatia, there is Bosnia, there is Montenegro, there is637Albania, there is Bulgaria, there is Romania surrounding three638entities that are not part of NATO. Everyone I just named are639part of NATO.640    You have got Bosnia-Herzegovina that is split between the641Croata and the Republika Srpska. You have got Serbia, and you642have got Kosovo. Kosovo wants to be, the President tells me643that NATO membership of Kosovo is the most important issue for644Kosovo. And yet we have four NATO members, some of whom645actually were in NATO back in 1999, that participated in646protecting Kosovo from Serbia.647    Now, I would like to start with you, Dr. Gardiner. What can648we do to bring more stability to the western Balkans, which is649a flashpoint, has been historically and traditionally a650flashpoint, to bring stability to the western Balkans through651admitting Kosovo to NATO? Is that a viable solution?652    Mr. Gardiner. Thank you very much for your question, Mr.653Chairman. And I think the situation in the Balkans today is one654of upheaval, ongoing crisis, especially with regard to Bosnia-655Herzegovina, where we have a fundamental, I think, lack of656national sovereignty, self-determination.657    You have in effect a sort of European elite that rules over658Bosnia-Herzegovina, and we need to see, I think, the659restoration of full sovereignty and self-determination. And I660think as long as you have this E.U.-driven elite that actually661in effect controls the Nation, you are not going to be able to662move forward, and I think the tremendous tensions that exist663within that region.664    With regard to Kosovo, I think great steps are being taken665in terms of advances within the Nation. They clearly seek to be666part of the NATO alliance. I think that with regard to Kosovo,667there has been a lot of positive developments.668    I think we will have to assess how things move in the669coming months and the next 2 years or so. But I have to say670that there is growing optimism with regard to the broader671outlook for Kosovo and for future participation in NATO. So I672do remain optimistic on that point.673    Mr. Self. Thank you. Admiral Montgomery.674    Admiral Montgomery. I will take a slightly more aggressive675approach and say that I think Serbia and the Republika Srpska676are both bad actors who place Balkan stability at risk.677    I think their leaders, Vucic and Dodik, are thugs who are678intentionally is trying to make the Republic of Bosnia largely679a tinderbox. And Vucic has aims on eliminating Kosovar680sovereignty.681    Our response needs to be strong. We need to support KFOR,682the NATO force that is in Kosovo as a stabilizing force, make683sure it is properly equipped and enabled with European and684American support.685    But most importantly, we do need to move Kosovo along the686path to further European integration, through both the European687Union and NATO. And the United States needs to use its688significant power to push countries like Spain who oppose this689into doing the right thing and allow Kosovo to enter the690broader European environment.691    Mr. Self. Thank you. Ambassador, I need to make one point.692I appreciated your point about more money does not mean our693industrial base is sufficient. And you pointed out that694European industrial base, but our own industrial base needs695reform and reenergized as well. Would you like to comment on696that in my last 20 seconds?697    Ms. Smith. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for698raising the western Balkans. Just quickly, this is a region699that demands attention from three different corners of the700world. NATO has to remain engaged, the European Union must stay701engaged to continue to pursue diplomatic efforts to work toward702peace.703    And the U.S. needs to show up and be present and engaged.704If not, Russia and China are waiting in the wings and play a705very active role in that neighborhood, trying to defy the folks706in the region and divide Europe from the United States.707    Mr. Self. Thank you, my time is up. So to honor the time, I708will have that question submitted to you in writing.709    I now recognize Mr. Keating, the ranking member.710    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.711    Ambassador Smith, I was curious too, and I think this is712worth mentioning, the U.S. commitment to Ukraine just isn't one713with NATO. As we are dealing with continued nuclear threats,714particularly in Iran, we know the danger of those threats.715    Well, decades ago, there was a commitment made to Ukraine.716Can you talk about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine before and717why that commitment was so important?718    Ms. Smith. So there have been multiple-thank you, Ranking719Member Keating-there have been multiple commitments to Ukraine720over the years. First and foremost, the NATO alliance promised721in 2008 that Ukraine would become a member of the alliance.722    But Ukraine has also gone through its own process of723ridding itself of any sort of nuclear weapons program, with the724hope that the United States and other countries would come to725its aid and----726    Mr. Keating. How big an arsenal was that? I mean, it was727the U.S., it was Russia. Where was Ukraine back then?728    Ms. Smith. It was significant.729    Mr. Keating. Was it the third?730    Ms. Smith. Not on the scale of Russia, but this was an731arsenal that would have, had it remained, served as a very732effective deterrent to Russia's aggression that we saw unfold733in February.734    Mr. Keating. So the U.S. commitment was before even this.735    Ms. Smith. Indeed. Well before, well before.736    Mr. Keating. And that commitment said that the U.S. would737defend aggression against Ukraine.738    Ms. Smith. Indeed.739    Mr. Keating. And so here we are. And now we have NATO740allies-so I am curious, how many times has Article 5 been741implemented by NATO?742    Ms. Smith. Only once, sir, and that was of course after 9/74311----744    Mr. Keating. So who benefited from that?745    Ms. Smith [continuing]. here in the United States, when746European allies came to our----747    Mr. Keating. We all benefited, but indeed, I was in748Afghanistan and Iraq, I saw NATO soldiers. I saw them there749defending, and many times unpopular in their own countries, the750U.S. defense in that regard.751    I am curious, too, if Putin is successful in Ukraine,752Admiral, what would that mean for U.S. investment? You know, we753are talking a lot about money here. What about the cost of754Putin being successful in Ukraine?755    What would NATO, what would the United States, do you756believe, have to deploy in Eastern Europe, and how expensive757would that be?758    Admiral Montgomery. Well, if he is successful in Ukraine, I759don't think he will be, but if he was successful in Ukraine, it760would put tremendous pressure on the Baltic States and Poland.761The Suwalki Gap, the area that he would like to grab there, is762very easy.763    So for us to counter that, it would take,--we already have764a brigade in Poland, would take a division in Poland. We have765battalions in the Baltic States, it would take brigades in the766Baltic States. In other words, at a time when we are767considering reducing our footprint in Europe, we would actually768have to significantly increase at least those rotational769forces.770    Mr. Keating. And wouldn't you say, in your experience,771deployment of troops is far more expensive than assets?772    Admiral Montgomery. It is, yes, sir. And it would be a lot773more expensive than the thirty-two or thirty-four billion774dollars' worth of weaponry we provided.775    Mr. Keating. And we talked, too, about the need for our own776country to do better in terms of procurement and dealing with777our assets. But wasn't in fact-we were in a period of778modernization in our own country, among armed services as well.779And so we were modernizing our forces.780    And many of these outdated by our perspective assets were781so useful to Ukraine. And wasn't, Ambassador Smith, wasn't the782investment of U.S. dollars, most of that money stayed here, is783that true? Most of it stayed here in jobs and to modernized our784own? So we benefited by this investment, not just Ukraine.785    Ms. Smith. Absolutely. In many cases, Europeans have been786purchasing equipment in the United States from our defense787industrial base to send to Ukraine, as well as they have788purchased equipment for their own use after they have donated789more dated equipment to Ukraine.790    So these contributions have come back to the United States.791And America's own commitments, the money that has been792dedicated to Ukraine, has gone into building out our own793capabilities as we have donated others.794    Mr. Keating. And how important, from a diplomatic795standpoint, is it to be consistent? You know, I listen, as many796people do, to the comments of Viktor Orban in Hungary and the797things he is saying. How discordant is the comments by someone798like Viktor Orban in Hungary in our effort?799    Ms. Smith. Well, it is disturbing to hear comments from our800friends in Hungary that they have very mixed views on801supporting Ukraine. They have found some smaller ways to802support Ukraine. But this has been a challenge across the803alliance to maintain that unity.804    But the key to it has been U.S. leadership. And when the805U.S. leads, it brings the allies together.806    Mr. Keating. Quickly, I have got 6 seconds left. Would you807say a savior of NATO would say you are on your own or go it808alone? Does that make sense?809    Ms. Smith. No, no.810    Mr. Keating. Donald Trump said those. I yield back.811    Mr. Self. Thank you. I now recognize the representative812from Ohio, Mr. Davidson.813    Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Chairman, thank our witnesses.814Appreciate the timely hearing today.815    It works, just not well. So if the sound guy can do816something about that, it would be great, but. So let me start817over.818    So thank you for the hearing. It is timely, and I would ask819unanimous consent to submit Vice President Vance's speech in820Munich for the record.821    Mr. Self. Accepted.822    Mr. Davidson. The administration sets the foreign policy823for our country, and the administration has been very clear824where the Biden administration wasn't. The Biden administration825never would define the mission in Ukraine. They would never say826what exactly they want to accomplish.827    The Trump administration has been clear in Ukraine by828saying we want to help restore peace. And that is what the829President and Secretary of State and every other tool in the830executive branch is trying to do, is to restore peace.831    When you look at Vice President Vance's speech in Munich,832he asked the fundamental question: what exactly are we833defending? And not just territory, but ideas and values.834    And I think it is noteworthy, because we see people from835western Europe claiming asylum in Hungary so they don't go to836jail for free speech or for participating in a political party837like AfD. Or the now-majority party in Poland, or the winner of838the Presidential election from the conservative party there.839    So you see values that are undermining the institution. And840the United States, by funding NATO, essentially becoming the de841facto security force for NATO, has enabled Europe to spend842their money on everything but defense.843    We have served as their defense, and it has been the844umbrella to which they have extended their membership eastward.845So we are pulling security while they are undermining the846values that made us the West, the values that when I was in847Berlin walking through Checkpoint Charlie in the days after 9848November 1989 that we said we were defending. And instead, it849is the other way.850    So you know, Ambassador Smith, I just want to be clear851because of this ongoing discussion about Ukraine, is Ukraine a852NATO member country?853    Ms. Smith. It is not today.854    Mr. Davidson. I didn't think so. Yes, we are certain of855that.856    Ms. Smith. It is one of NATO's closest partners.857    Mr. Davidson. But we seem to keep treating Ukraine as a858member of NATO. Should we make Ukraine a member of NATO?859    Ms. Smith. The alliance agreed in 2008 and stated that860Ukraine will someday become a member. Right now there is no861consensus across the alliance to do so.862    Mr. Davidson. Yes, there is clearly not a consensus, and I863think for good reason. Because if we brought Ukraine into NATO,864we would immediately be in a State of war.865    One of the things that people like to refer to is Article8665.867    So you know, Admiral Montgomery, you said in your testimony868that, ``The U.S. posture in Europe gives NATO's Article 5 its869teeth.'' I worry that, you know, that kind of proves my point870that it enables the European Union member countries to871basically rely on America's blanket of security and under-872invest in their own.873    And I guess at some point, is your own view that Article 5874would obligate us to fight a war, actually be immediately in a875State of war, if a NATO member country was attacked?876    Admiral Montgomery. If there is an Article 5 violation877determined by the alliance, then I think it is highly likely878the United States would participate in that war. And I do think879we are the enablers and there is no doubt, our GDP is equal to880all of Europe.881    So it is likely that if we were all spending three point--882five percent, we are currently spending, I know the graph said883something else, but I think we spend about 3.02 percent, 3.025884percent, to put a specific number on it on defense.885    We don't spend that-I mean, I got to be clear here, we are886barely clear of the numbers we want them to get to. But if we887are spending that much, and they spend that much, we will be888able to secure ourselves and deter Vladimir Putin from doing889things.890    My goal is not that we fight Article 5, but we make it891clear to Putin that should you attack a treaty ally of ours892like the Baltic States or Poland, we will hold you accountable.893And therefore when he sees how strong we and Europe together-894and I agree with you completely, Europe needs to carry its895load. And Europe was apathetic for 30 years.896    But they are coming around, led by the Eastern Europeans.897And even the President has acknowledged that the Eastern898Europeans were spending four and now soon 5 percent, deserve899our support. The President has spoken about the Baltics that900way.901    Mr. Davidson. It is good and I am glad you acknowledge that902Congress actually has the decision on whether we go to war. So903Article 5 doesn't automatically trip it.904    You know, my time is largely expired here, but I just want905to point out that, you know, President Eisenhower thought that906if we were in NATO for 10 years, that we would have not907succeeded in the mission of NATO. So I think it is worth908questioning, as Vice President Vance did in Munich, what are we909doing here.910    Mr. Self. Thank you, and I now recognize the representative911from Nevada, Ms. Titus, for 5 minutes.912    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.913    All right, just taking a little different tack. We have914seen Russia launch information attacks on European countries915that are in sensitive political contexts, and we have seen it916in Georgia, we have seen it in Moldova. It has also extended to917NATO countries like Romania in their recent election.918    And all these attacks are aimed at causing confusion. They919deepen political and social divisions. They destabilize920societies. And the ultimate goal is weakening NATO, I believe.921    So Ambassador Smith, I will start with you. Can you tell us922how NATO is working with allies, partners, and private sector923actors to kind of identify, expose, and address and combat this924foreign disinformation that is coming from Russia?925    Ms. Smith. Thank you very much, Representative, for raising926Russia's hybrid tactics. They use a variety of tools to try and927divide societies from within and divide Europeans from each928other and Europe from the United States. They fly into NATO929airspace, they use disinformation campaigns.930    There have been incidents of sabotage where suddenly we931have seen arson attacks of warehouses full of weapons destined932for Ukraine. We have seen undersea cables cut.933    So this is a standard playbook on the part of the Russians.934NATO has increasingly turned to improving and strengthening its935toolkit. We have better cyber security tools. We now exercise936and train to test where we would hit that Article 5 threshold937under some potential hybrid attack from Russia.938    We have better surveillance in the Nordic Baltic space,939looking for incidents where they are about to clip another940undersea cable. So NATO is the place where we can work hand in941glove with our European allies to get a stronger and better942toolkit to deal with Russian gray zone tactics.943    Ms. Titus. I am glad to hear we are doing those things, but944at the same time, we are eliminating the Global Engagement945Center. Can you address how that might work to our946disadvantaged?947    Ms. Smith. Well, that is unfortunate, because right now in948the U.S. Government, it seems that this administration is not949placing any importance on those types of efforts to combat950disinformation stemming from not only Russia, but Iran, from951China. These countries work together to share messages to learn952from one another in how they promote these pieces of953disinformation.954    And the U.S. traditionally has been a leader in helping955allies understand how to counter those efforts. But right now,956with the elimination of the Global Engagement Center, we will957likely not be the beating heart of those efforts going forward.958    Ms. Titus. I agree with you.959    Admiral Montgomery. Can I add one thing on that, ma'am? The960Trump administration didn't get rid of the Global Engagement961Center, Congress did. You allowed it to-its authorities to962expire last December. And that was, I agree it is a mistake.963    But what the Trump administration has done has gotten rid964of the Voice of America and most of the other distributions965systems, which is a mistake. That tells the truth about America966for people to hear. When I lived in the Soviet Union in the967early 1980's, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe were what968you could hear there to hear the American story.969    So I am disappointed in the Trump administration for that.970But I don't blame them for the Global Engagement Center. You in971Congress allowed that to expire in December of last year.972    Ms. Titus. I didn't. Don't say I did. But, yes, some did.973    Admiral Montgomery. You.974    [Laughter.]975    Ms. Titus. Okay. Well, you have done a few things too. Let976me ask you this, shifting over here to you, Admiral. Excuse me977for saying General.978    We are fixing to go to the NATO summit in The Hague. Now,979we have got two allies in a part of the world that needs more980and more attention, the eastern Mediterranean. So many things981are happening in that area, from Israel, Syria, Lebanon, you982name it.983    We got two NATO allies there. We got Greece and Turkiye.984Greece is a friend, Turkiye is not such a reliable ally. What985is the message we should be sending to Turkiye when we go to986The Hague next week?987    Admiral Montgomery. I agree with you, and I am glad we are988selling Greece F-35s. I think we should continue to sell Greece989significant weaponry as necessary so they can do their job990securing the Aegean and southeastern Europe.991    Turkiye needs to get a strong message from us that they992should not be eligible for the F-35 until they completely give993up the S-400. I am very concerned that the administration is994going to, you know, remove one little part, direct the movement995of one little part from the S-400, and then say Turkiye can buy996F-35s. That is a mistake.997    Turkiye needs to be held accountable for its bad998decisionmaking on the S-400's and on its support for Hamas. And999I think that is strong message that needs to be delivered by1000the administration in The Hague and elsewhere.1001    Ms. Titus. Thank you. I yield back.1002    Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative Mrs. Kim.1003    Mrs. Kim. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Chairman Self1004and Ranking Member Keating, for holding today's hearing. And1005thank you for joining us today.1006    I want to ask my first question to Mr. Montgomery. You1007know, NATO's ability to deter threats from Russia depends on a1008robust and responsive defense industrial base.1009    However, Europe's defense industries face critical1010vulnerabilities in supply chains, production capacity, and1011procurement strategies, as highlighted by Russia's war against1012Ukraine. And with some NATO allies still falling short of the10132-percent GDP defense spending pledge, that also limits1014investments in modernization and in readiness.1015    So can you talk about the specific steps that NATO allies1016can take to address any vulnerabilities in Europe's defense1017industrial base, especially when it comes to critical munitions1018and advanced systems production?1019    Admiral Montgomery. Thank you for bringing that up. And you1020are absolutely right. You know, as we look, as we sourced1021Ukraine over the last 3 years, 95 percent of what U.S. provided1022was U.S. equipment. But more than 50 percent of the western1023equipment provided by the Europeans was U.S. equipment. They do1024not have a effective defense industrial base.1025    I also don't believe they can properly conceive of what is1026needed. It took you, Congress, 40 years to build the current1027defense industrial base and trillions and trillions of dollars1028in direct investment. And the Europeans have not made those1029commitments.1030    And when I hear President Macron talk about a European1031solution to this, the amount of money he discusses is way too1032low. So the truth is the Europeans are going to need to rely on1033us over the next decade to rearm themselves, and they are also1034going to need to build their own defense industrial base.1035    Mrs. Kim. Specifically, I need to ask how the United States1036can help European allies in overcoming those shortfalls. And at1037the same time, we need to ensure the interoperability within1038our alliance.1039    Admiral Montgomery. I think we should take the Rheinmetall,1040that example we have right now with Rheinmetall, the German1041artillery firm, which is partnering with the United States,1042with U.S. firms so that they can scale their production1043properly.1044    So, what I think is joint ventures between U.S. companies1045and European companies that build both in the United States,1046for jobs in the United States, but also in Europe, for jobs in1047Europe, with that European money. That is the most logical,1048cost-efficient way. It is not what the French are proposing,1049but I think long-term that is how NATO needs to settle out.1050    Mrs. Kim. Next I want to talk about Russia and China.1051    You know, in your testimony, Mr. Montgomery, you made it1052very clear that Russia under Putin is the, in quotes, ``single1053greatest threat to peace and democracy in Europe.''1054    You also noted the role that China has played in helping1055sustain Russia's war in Ukraine, and providing dual-use1056technologies and economic support.1057    So, we know China is bolstering Russia's defense industrial1058base with microelectronics, telecommunications equipment, and1059drone technology.1060    So, in that context, how should NATO adapt its deterrence1061and defense strategies so they can address the combined1062military and technological threats posed by a Russia-China1063partnership?1064    Admiral Montgomery. And you are exactly right, what I am1065saying there is that Ukraine is actually fighting four1066countries right now: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. And1067I would say most of us think North Korea and Iran are the next1068biggest problems. They are not. It is China.1069    China is backstopping Russia's economy. They have increased1070their imports and exports more than 30 percent. As you said,1071they provided the microelectronics. They are supporting the Kh-1072101, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles. They are striking1073Ukraine every night.1074    We absolutely have to hold China accountable for its1075support to, to Ukraine.1076    Mrs. Kim. Is there specific capabilities or partnerships1077that NATO should prioritize to counter those threats?1078    Admiral Montgomery. Yes. So, I do believe it is NATO's role1079in an Asia-Pacific context will be very economic in nature. So1080that what we need to do is start working together on how we1081sanction and export control China properly. And we need to get1082the Europeans more engaged in that, and committed as we are.1083    Mrs. Kim. I have one more question regarding the NATO and1084Western Balkans. The Western Balkans is a critical region for1085NATO staffers to promote stability and counter external1086influence. Russia has intensified its efforts to undermine NATO1087in EU integration in countries like Serbia, using1088disinformation, economic leverage, and political interference.1089    So, what specific strategy should NATO employ to counter1090Russian influence in the Western Baltics--or Balkans? And1091particularly in Serbia, as I mentioned, and where the, you1092know, favorable perceptions of Russia are growing, especially,1093like I said, in Serbia?1094    Admiral Montgomery. I think you are exactly right.1095President Putin has supported both Vucic in Serbia and Dodik in1096Republika Srpska. We need to fully support Kosovo in its1097efforts to enter the European Union and NATO.1098    But more importantly, we need to ensure the stabilizing1099force, NATO's KFOR force in Kosovo is properly manned and1100equipped to do a what it has to to provide the warning that is1101necessary so that Washington can hold Serbia accountable for1102threats to Kosovo.1103    Mrs. Kim. Thank you very much. My time is up. I yield back.1104    Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from1105California, Mr. Costa.1106    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.1107    For the purpose of my 5 minutes I want to focus on NATO and1108Ukraine. But let me first remind ourselves of a bit of history.1109    When Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th, 2022, there1110was strong bipartisan support that this was about good versus1111evil. Very clear, good versus evil.1112    Let me quote from a speech that President Ronald Reagan1113gave in 1983.1114    ``To ignore the facts of history and aggressive impulses of1115an evil empire is simply to call the arms race a giant1116misunderstanding, and thereby remove yourself from the struggle1117between right and wrong, and good and evil.'' President Ronald1118Reagan in 1983.1119    I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, and members of the1120subcommittee, that this is still about good versus evil, bottom1121line. Okay?1122    So, when we look at NATO, and when we look at the United1123States post-World War II, do we not witness that the United1124States and whoever has been President of the United States,1125World War II to today, has been viewed as the indispensable1126leader of the free world, Ambassador Smith?1127    Ms. Smith. Absolutely, Representative. The U.S. has led the1128alliance since it was created 76 years ago. It has provided not1129only----1130    Mr. Costa. The indispensable leader of the free world.1131    Ms. Smith. Yes. Absolutely.1132    Mr. Costa. Dr. Gardiner, would you agree?1133    Mr. Gardiner. One hundred percent the United States is the1134indispensable leader of the free world, and remains so today.1135    Mr. Costa. Rear Admiral Montgomery, what would you say?1136    Admiral Montgomery. I would say absolutely. And we should1137keep the command of SACEUR as part of that indispensable1138leadership.1139    Mr. Costa. So, we are part of a seminal moment in world1140history today as we look at what has taken place. Because Putin1141has been very clear, although the Soviet Union has imploded he1142still has visions and dreams of restoring the Russian Empire,1143does he not? Would all three of you agree?1144    Mr. Gardiner. Yes.1145    Admiral Montgomery. Yes.1146    Ms. Smith. Yes.1147    Mr. Costa. I mean he has been very clear in all of his1148speeches here.1149    So, Ambassador Smith, yes or no, do you believe a strong1150NATO alliance is important to counter the rising and aggressive1151forces of China?1152    Ms. Smith. Yes, I do. Not to suggest that the NATO alliance1153is going to operate in the Indo-Pacific, but its deepening1154partnerships with Japan, South Korea----1155    Mr. Costa. China is very carefully watching what we are1156doing in Ukraine----1157    Ms. Smith. Indeed.1158    Mr. Costa [continuing]. would all three of you agree?1159    Ms. Smith. Yes.1160    Mr. Gardiner. Yes.1161    Admiral Montgomery. Yes.1162    Mr. Gardiner. Yes.1163    Mr. Costa. Whether or not we are going to maintain our1164commitment to our allies and to a democratic and free1165Ukraine,----1166    Ms. Smith. Yes.1167    Mr. Costa [continuing]. the world is watching, would you1168not say?1169    Ms. Smith. Absolutely.1170    Mr. Costa. So, therefore, this is a seminal moment in1171American and world history with our NATO allies?1172    Ms. Smith. Yes.1173    Mr. Gardiner. Yes.1174    Mr. Costa. Admiral Montgomery, the probable outcome of the1175support, and you have been there, I know, recently, in Ukraine,1176the F-16s and other support to ensure that--and, of course, we1177are all amazed, but we shouldn't be because, once again, I1178remember all the intelligence briefings we received prior to1179Russia's invasion of over-expectations and under-expectations.1180    But Ukraine, the Ukrainian brave people are the MacGyvers1181of this, of this new type of warfare. Would you not agree,1182Admiral Montgomery?1183    Admiral Montgomery. I do. And their use of the F-16 has1184been exceptional in the few months they have been operating.1185    Mr. Costa. And what should we be doing to ensure that those1186aircraft are fully operational and able to achieve their1187capability?1188    Admiral Montgomery. We gave them the F-16s, the European1189countries did, without what is called lifecycle maintenance:1190the consumables, the equipment, the training, and the1191maintenance stuff they need. We need to fully provide the1192lifecycle maintenance and we need to provide the right weapons1193systems to be used as a counter-drone.1194    Mr. Costa. And our allies, the Danish and the Netherlands1195have provided the aircraft. We are helping to try to train the1196pilots. But we need to do more; is that not correct?1197    Admiral Montgomery. That is correct. We need to do the1198supply chain, the logistics. And we can just sell it to them.1199We don't need to give it to them. We can sell it to them, but1200we have to provide that lifecycle maintenance.1201    And, sir, I have to emphasize, we need to give them the1202counter-drone rocket systems, the APKWS that you need to fire1203from those systems.1204    Mr. Costa. You wrote a column about this last week. There1205are varied types of systems that the aircraft are lacking that1206we should provide. What are they?1207    Admiral Montgomery. The rocket system I just mentioned, and1208an active jamming system.1209    Mr. Costa. The jamming system is very important to the1210protection of these systems; that is right, isn't it?1211    Admiral Montgomery. That is right. We want to make sure1212that the pilots who are trained in the United States and the1213aircraft, of which they have limited numbers right now, as you1214said, the Netherlands, and Denmark, and eventually Norway,1215survive. They are fighting them exceptionally but they could1216use more support from us.1217    Mr. Costa. Let me finally indicate, when Secretary Rubio1218testified before the committee here about a week ago they1219talked about maximum, maximum pressure on Iran to prevent them1220from obtaining nuclear weapons. And by the way, I agree with1221that.1222    And I understand the Secretary, what are we doing to put1223maximum, maximum pressure on Russia to ensure that they1224understand that we mean business and we are going to stay with1225our allies? What should we be doing?1226    Admiral Montgomery. We should be sanctioning the people who1227are helping the shadow fleet evade sanctions. In other words,1228Chinese, Indian, Turkish companies that are taking the fossil1229fuels that are shipped from Russia in their shadow fleet and1230allow them to circumvent the existing sanctions that neither1231the Biden administration nor the Trump administration has1232properly enforced sanctions to allow that to happen.1233    Mr. Costa. And if we put maximum, maximum pressure, maybe1234Russia will come to the realization that we mean business?1235    Admiral Montgomery. Potentially. He is Vladimir Putin, so I1236won't say yes.1237    Mr. Costa. Thank you.1238    I have used my time, Mr. Chairman. And I will submit1239further questions for the record.1240    Mr. Self. And I recognize the representative from Florida,1241Ms. Luna.1242    Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1243    First and foremost, I am going to have to disagree with my1244colleagues' sentiment as Ukraine as our ally. Ukraine is not a1245member of NATO.1246    But aside from that, Zelenskyy hasn't held actual elections1247since the war started. So, I don't know what free and fair1248democracy does that.1249    But aside from that, if we are looking at the U.S. total1250spending in NATO, it is 3.3 percent of the defense budget,1251which is a lot of money. My question, and I would like to1252actually point out we just saw two senators took a vlogging1253trip to Ukraine yesterday. It was Senator Blumenthal and1254Graham. I guess it was over the weekend.1255    But to put simply, their sanctions bill with Graham is1256basically another D.C. classic. Their Sanctioning Russia Act of12572025, there is a 500 percent tariff, and banking bans at1258Moscow. But where is the accountability for how billions in1259Part A were spent?1260    Biden's admin shoveled millions and millions of dollars1261into Ukraine with zero oversight, no audits, no results. Now1262this bill demands 55 million for monitoring, while Section 171263slaps tariffs on other countries buying Russian oil, which1264China will bypass through third parties.1265    Trump's America First polities does not write blank checks,1266it demands verifiable wins. And if Europe is not going to step1267up militarily, why should U.S. taxpayers fund their security1268theater? Sanctions without enforced negotiations are just1269performative politics.1270    You know, I was just with the House Democracy Partnership1271Institute. We were actually in Belgium. We met with the1272European Union. We met with the NATO countries. And what I can1273tell you is you have these countries who are not surrounding1274the Ukraine, and they are advocating for war.1275    But you have countries like Romania, Russia--countries like1276Moldova that want peace, and thoroughly back President Trump's1277agenda.1278    The reason that I bring that up is because I do believe if1279we continue funding NATO in our current capacity we are simply1280making excuses, not forcing them to take a realistic approach1281at peace negotiations.1282    My first question would be to Mr. Montgomery. If you could1283just go back and elaborate really quickly on what you had1284stated in regards to oil?1285    Admiral Montgomery. Yes. Right now the Russians are able to1286shift their fossil fuels and avoid existing sanctions, which1287both the Biden and Trump administration have in place, by1288finding third parties. They ship them on illegal shadow ships.1289And third parties, and you mentioned China, India, Turkiye, are1290receiving that.1291    The way you normally stop that is you then sanction the1292companies receiving that, the ports receiving it, and the banks1293involved in the, in the procurement. And then those companies1294back off.1295    And historically we have seen that happen with Iran, with1296North Korea, with others.1297    So, all we have to do is enforce the existing laws, the1298existing sanctions, and we will, we will take away Russia's,1299what is funding Russia's military operations.1300    Mrs. Luna. Instead of performative politics; correct?1301    I mean, I agree with you.1302    Admiral Montgomery. Right. Oh, instead of the--Yes.1303    Mrs. Luna. Yes.1304    Admiral Montgomery. I think we can do that regardless of1305the sanction bill going on in the Senate.1306    Mrs. Luna. Cool.1307    And aside from that, just with that same perspective, do1308you think that it is a good idea for members of our Senate,1309Members of Congress to go outside of the policy being set forth1310by the White House and the Secretary of State in regards to1311policy with Russia that we are seeing currently?1312    Admiral Montgomery. Well, I certainly feel it is fair for1313senators and Congressmen to go on whatever congressional1314delegations they want. I have supported thousands in my career.1315And I, and I have no opinion on when Republicans, you know,1316criticize Democrat administrations or Democrat representative1317criticize Republican administrations.1318    And to my military knowledge, that appears to be the normal1319way of doing business.1320    Mrs. Luna. Do you think, though, that it is dangerous to1321have people that are advocating for a policy that is pro war1322when they are first and foremost not the ones on the front1323line, and also to receive massive contracts from defense1324contractors--or not massive contracts but massive donations and1325support from defense contractors?1326    Admiral Montgomery. I know Senator Graham, and I believe he1327honestly believes----1328    Mrs. Luna. This isn't directed at Senator Graham, sir.1329    Admiral Montgomery. Oh.1330    Mrs. Luna. That seems to be a problem not just in the House1331but also in the Senate, not specific to one member, both1332Democrat and Republican.1333    Admiral Montgomery. I, as a retired military officer, I1334would never hold a politician accountable for, you know,1335expressing his or her views.1336    Mrs. Luna. Sorry?1337    Admiral Montgomery. A politician should be allowed, able to1338express his or her views.1339    Mrs. Luna. Oh, no, that, I mean, I understand that, sir. I1340was just asking simply.1341    I thank you for your time. And, obviously, not trying to1342attack you on this. I appreciate you being here today.1343    Thank you, Chairman.1344    Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from Rhode1345Island, Mr. Amo.1346    Mr. Amo. Thank you.1347    Thank you to our witnesses for being here.1348    We know that the United States' leadership in NATO is1349essential to our own national security. We must support our1350European allies as they take meaningful steps to ensure and1351increase their own defense spending and capabilities. And we1352cannot pull away and isolate ourselves as the current1353Republican administration seeks.1354    Maintaining a strong leadership role in NATO means standing1355up to the biggest threat facing our European allies: Russia's1356aggression. But Republicans on this very committee remain1357silent as Donald Trump scolds our NATO allies, parrots Putin's1358talking points, and retreats on the global stage.1359    As Russian attacks are stepping up, Trump is stepping back.1360He is not lifting a finger to support Ukraine in their fight1361for freedom, sovereignty and security. And Russian aggression1362toward our allies can be seen in their sabotage of essential1363underwater technologies and infrastructure.1364    At least 11 undersea cables in the Baltic Sea have been1365damaged since October 2023, including cables disrupting1366essential energy and internet services to our allies in Sweden1367and Finland.1368    Ambassador Smith, could you explain how NATO is countering1369attacks against undersea infrastructure?1370    And how can the U.S. support this work and protect our own1371underwater infrastructure from this sabotage?1372    Ms. Smith. Thank you, Representative, for raising this1373particular issue.1374    The clippings of or cutting of undersea cables is1375increasingly a topic of conversation across the NATO alliance.1376And allies have increased their surveillance, particularly in1377the Baltic Sea. They are sharing more intelligence, sharing1378best practices, and putting together a toolkit that will enable1379the alliance to fortify itself to these types of hybrid1380tactics.1381    This is an area where U.S. leadership is indispensable. And1382if we continue to work through this particular issue through1383NATO, we will see a stronger collective alliance response to1384these types of incidents.1385    Mr. Amo. Thank you.1386    And, you know, this is an example where our adversaries,1387especially China, are watching NATO's response to Russia's1388aggression. Our response, our collaboration, our refusal to1389retreat from this task is a signal that I think is incredibly1390important.1391    And, you know, this is, you know, emblematic of the1392response that we need to have in--to the increased coordination1393and cooperation between Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran as1394they, you know, of course form a significant threat against1395Ukraine and NATO.1396    And, so, China's continued investments in critical1397infrastructure and telecommunications systems in particular1398across Europe raises alarms about this coordination.1399    And I would love for you to share a little bit more about1400how NATO can and should counter the combined threat of1401coordination between those actors, Russia, China, North Korea,1402and Iran, especially with the investments from China in1403critical telecommunications systems.1404    Ms. Smith. Well, this is actually a remarkable bipartisan1405story. And I guess there are not as many of those these days as1406we would all wish.1407    But in the Trump administration's first term they pushed1408the alliance to conduct a China review that put China on the1409map and got allies talking about what China is doing in and1410around Europe.1411    The Biden administration grabbed the baton. We were able to1412get China into NATO's strategic concept, deepen our1413partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. And now handed the baton back1414to the second Trump administration.1415    My hope is that this administration will continue to run1416down this path to heighten allies' awareness of what China is1417doing in Europe, whether it is economic coercion,1418disinformation, or fueling and helping supply Russia's war in1419Ukraine.1420    Mr. Amo. And I think it is so important that you1421highlighted the fact that the sort of current context of the1422Trump administration and its questioning of the NATO1423relationship doesn't have to be. And they have already proven1424that through the types of collaboration and commitment that we1425saw prior, carrying on from an administration whether or not it1426is a Democratic or Republican administration. These are about1427values, American values that we share.1428    And the last thing I will touch on, and I may not be able1429to get your answer but I will try to do so in writing. The1430point I want to make here is that it is really essential that1431NATO maintain a unified position against the threat of Russia1432and their new partners.1433    I have questions about Turkiye in this moment. And, you1434know, if you could, briefly, how should the United States and1435NATO approach member nations who are maintaining those ties1436with Russia that imperil the strength of the NATO relationship?1437    Ms. Smith. Well, Turkiye is an important but complicated1438ally in the alliance. The U.S. needs to work with Turkiye where1439our interests coincide.1440    But in cases where we are at odds, we have to approach them1441with honesty and work through our differences, whether it is1442inside the alliance or in our bilateral relationship, or in1443their relationship with Russia.1444    I will say on Ukraine in that first year in 2022, Turkiye1445played an important role in trying to bring the parties1446together. We have recently seen renewed efforts to do so,1447welcoming both Ukrainians and Russians back to Turkiye to,1448hopefully, negotiate.1449    Mr. Amo. Hopefully, that is a trend line that we see1450continue.1451    With that, I yield back.1452    Mr. Self. And I recognize the representative from Texas,1453Ms. Johnson.1454    Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.1455    And to our panelists, thank you so much for being here1456today.1457    I want to echo my colleagues and our witnesses' comments1458that NATO's very existence has averted world wars and made the1459United States safer. Let me be clear, it is not a waste of1460resources when we come together as allies to defend one1461another, as implied by some other members of this committee.1462    The security and prosperity that we have enjoyed since1463world wars is no accident. Out of the fog of war, the United1464States helped found this 80-year-old alliance that guaranteed1465under Article 5 that should any NATO nation come under attack,1466the other members will consider it as an attack against members1467all, and will take all actions it deems necessary to assist.1468    Article 5 has been invoked once in NATO's history, and that1469was on September 12th, 2001, 1 day after Al Qaeda killed almost14703,000 people here in our homeland.1471    In the following years our NATO allies came to our aid and14721,000 troops died in combat alongside Americans.1473    But now we have a President who questions that same1474security assistance we relied on to keep our own nation safe.1475Just a few weeks ago he said in the Oval Office, ``You know,1476the biggest problem I have with NATO, if the United States is1477in trouble and we call them, do you think they are going to1478come and protect us? They're supposed to. I'm not so sure.''1479    I find these comments incredibly reckless, and1480irresponsible, and dangerous to our national security in light1481of the one time when NATO's been activated, it was in our1482defense.1483    Ambassador Smith, how does this suggestion that NATO allies1484will not defend each other impact our adversaries' perception1485of credible deterrence?1486    And does this undermine our own security?1487    Ms. Smith. Well, thank you, Representative.1488    When the war in Ukraine started, I think both President Xi1489in China and President Putin in Russia made an assumption, and1490that was that the NATO allies would grow weary, that they would1491grow impatient, that they would grow distracted, and they1492wouldn't be able to maintain focus on Ukraine.1493    But we have maintained focus on Ukraine. We remain united.1494I am worried that won't continue to be the case. I want to see1495continued U.S. leadership, which is critical to alliance unity.1496    And while the Europeans are increasing their defense1497budgets, it makes perfect sense to remain committed to this1498alliance. It serves our interests in addition to the interests1499of our allies.1500    So, I firmly believe that the U.S. should maintain its1501commitment to this alliance, and that doing so will send a very1502strong signal not just to Moscow but to China, Iran, North1503Korea, and other countries around the world.1504    Ms. Johnson. And it seems to me like the administration is1505sort of doing the hokey-pokey: we are in 1 day, we are out 11506day, we are in 1 day, and we are turning it all about. And that1507is not the way to have sustained, reliable, persuasive foreign1508policy in my opinion.1509    Do you agree?1510    Ms. Smith. Yes, Representative.1511    I will tell you that the day that the Trump administration1512suddenly, without consultation with any of our allies, flipped1513off and turned off intelligence sharing to Ukraine, and all1514military assistance--it was eventually turned back on--but that1515day sent a chill through our European allies, our friends in1516Canada, who were worried that this now signals a new era where1517at any moment the U.S. can have a sudden shift without any1518close coordination or cooperation with them.1519    Ms. Johnson. The President just sent over a rescission bill1520that will defund, remove funding, critical funding for the U.N.1521I am curious as to how this panel feels about the U.S.1522decreasing its financial commitment to the U.N. and what that1523would do to our national security interests.1524    Yes?1525    Mr. Gardiner. Thank you very much for the question.1526    I fully support efforts to reduce funding for the United1527Nations because the United Nations is riddled with corruption1528and inefficiency, and frequently acts against U.S. national1529interests.1530    And I think that the Trump presidency is pushing for1531greater accountability from the United Nations. And that is1532absolutely, absolutely right.1533    And so----1534    Mr. Johnson. Admiral, how do you feel about that?1535    Admiral Montgomery. I am uncomfortable with the rescission1536plan with the United Nations, but more, more so with the1537reduction in USAID funding for, particularly I study the cyber1538capability capacity building that we have been doing in Eastern1539Europe and in the Balkans, and I think the cutting of that1540funding, the reduction in that funding will make us, it will1541make it much more difficult for U.S. forces to operate, to move1542in and through these countries as we like to do with our1543forces.1544    So, we have to be very careful with these reductions and1545our overseas assistance. If they have a legitimate national1546security value, they should be maintained. And when you1547eliminate 100 percent of everything, I tend to think you really1548didn't do a legitimate review.1549    Ms. Johnson. I couldn't agree with you more.1550    Thank you all so much for your testimony. I am out of time1551and I yield back.1552    Mr. Self. With that, I recognize the representative from1553Illinois, Mr. Schneider.1554    Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for1555allowing me to join this hearing. And to our witnesses, I1556appreciate your insights.1557    You all used similar imagery. You talked about NATO as the1558beating heart, the bedrock, the bulwark. That was very1559consistent.1560    Ambassador Smith, you also spoke about a trust deficit. And1561I will paraphrase, but many governments are worried that the1562U.S. commitment to NATO is conditional or transactional.1563    Are European allies right to worry about the U.S.,1564Ambassador Smith?1565    Ms. Smith. Well, I will tell you, having just got back from1566Spain a couple of days ago, and having the opportunity to meet1567with a number of allies across Europe, there is a real concern1568that the United States right now is unpredictable, and that its1569position both on Ukraine and on the NATO alliance is entirely1570unclear. They do not like that unpredictability and worry about1571whether or not U.S. leadership will continue.1572    Mr. Schneider. I am going to ask for my time back because I1573want to move on to other things.1574    But, Dr. Gardiner, right to worry?1575    Mr. Gardiner. If I could respond to that, actually. I have1576met with dozens and dozens of European here at Washington over1577the past few months, and also been to several European capitals1578recently. And the message from our European friends is that1579President Trump is actually applying the right kind of pressure1580on NATO to increase defense spending to do more.1581    He is really shaking up the trans-Atlantic alliance in a1582very positive way. And I have not, I have not heard the1583negativity that you are----1584    Mr. Schneider. And I have got it covered, so I appreciate1585that.1586    Mr. Gardiner [continuing]. that you are referring to.1587    Mr. Schneider. Rear Admiral Montgomery?1588    Admiral Montgomery. So, I don't think this has been a wise1589maneuver, just like I didn't think it was wise to pull out of1590Afghanistan without informing our NATO allies. I think we have1591about a 5-year streak right now of being too unpredictable and1592too unfocused on the actual rapacious authoritarians staring us1593in the face.1594    Mr. Schneider. And if I can pick up from there.1595    I remember the images from Bucha: the bodies in the street,1596the hands tied behind backs, the faces of ordinary people, men,1597women, and children massacred in cold blood by Russian troops.1598Russia's goal was not just to seize territory, it was to1599extinguish a nation, to remind those still under its power that1600resistance is fatal, and to warn those who escape that their1601safety was not assured.1602    There was no ambiguity. It was terror. It was annihilation.1603And it was specifically staged for the world to see. And the1604world responded.1605    NATO reinforced its eastern flank. Our allies rose to the1606moment. And for the time, I would argue, so did we.1607    But I think at this moment the United States is drifting.1608Not drifting, we are actually being led away, led away from1609principle toward paralysis. The President has remained silent1610as Russia renews its campaign of drone strikes against1611civilians. He has not condemned the atrocities. He has not1612mobilized support. He has not led.1613    And many in Congress, including some of my colleagues who1614are on the other side today, have followed that example. They1615speak, of Ukraine's cause but shrink from its defense. They1616block aid, delay action, and offer platitudes in place of1617policy. Some have mistaken political convenience for principle,1618or they have lost both.1619    We are once again at a point of strategic and moral1620clarity. Ukraine is not asking for our troops, it is asking for1621our resolve. NATO is not demanding escalation, it is asking for1622consistency.1623    Each day that the United States hesitates, NATO's1624deterrence is tested, and not only in Kyiv, but in Warsaw,1625Tallinn, and beyond. And if Ukraine chooses to pursue NATO1626membership, as we promised in 2008, as Ukraine as part of an1627agreement to relinquish its nuclear weapons, as part of the1628family of nations, there has to be a clear and credible path1629forward for Ukraine, who has made sacrifice, who has bravely1630fought the Russians.1631    We need to honor our commitments and admit that door to1632NATO remains open to free nations, not just Ukraine but free1633nations who meet its obligations and share its values.1634    So, my question, I will turn to Ambassador Smith again.1635Bucha was a moment of clarity. The President has been silent on1636Bucha, been silent on the new campaign, Russia's new campaign1637of drone strikes against civilians. He told Zelenskyy that he1638had no cards to play in the Oval Office. I can only imagine1639what Zelenskyy was thinking, knowing that there were plenty of1640cards left to play, as we saw this weekend.1641    What does the President's silence communicate to our NATO1642allies, and to Moscow in particular?1643    Ms. Smith. It has led to uncertainty about whether or not1644the U.S. is clear-eyed here about who is the aggressor and who1645is the victim. The U.S. needs to State repeatedly that Russia1646is the aggressor and Ukraine is the victim.1647    We must apply more pressure on Russia to move toward peace,1648but we also have to ensure that the Ukrainians don't have any1649limits on the size of their forces or whether or not they can1650build a future force so that this doesn't happen again.1651    Mr. Schneider. Thank you. I am over time.1652    As has been noted here, NATO came to the United States' aid1653under Article 5 after we were attacked on September 11th. NATO1654has led the way in ensuring that Ukraine is able to defend1655itself against aggression from Russia. There is no dispute.1656There should be no question. We have to be clear that that was1657the case.1658    I appreciate the witnesses' testimony. And I yield back.1659    Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from Delaware,1660Mr. McBride.1661    Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, I request 30 seconds to make a1662unanimous statement.1663    Mr. Self. You are recognized, Mr. Keating.1664    Mr. Keating. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1665    Last hearing you referred to Representative McBride as1666representative, and I can't fathom how you just can't continue1667to do that. In any case, it is obvious to me that1668Representative McBride wants to focus on the job she was1669elected to do.1670    So, going forward, every time you do this she will1671demonstrate who she is, and you will demonstrate who you are.1672    With that, let us focus back on the hearing.1673    Ms. McBride. Thank you, Ranking Member Keating. I am indeed1674here to talk about strengthening our national security by1675bolstering our NATO alliance because democracy is under attack,1676both in the U.S. and around the world.1677    NATO, grounded in shared cultural values with our trans-1678Atlantic allies, plays a vital role in defending democracy and1679sustaining the U.S.-led democratic world order that protects1680our freedoms every single day.1681    NATO has been a defender of democracy both at home and in1682Europe for over 75 years, fostering both one of the longest1683periods of peace between great powers in human history, and the1684greatest expansion of freedom and individual liberty ever.1685    On the global stage, this administration is attacking our1686NATO allies Denmark and Canada, canceling foreign aid without1687notice, and defending Putin's illegal war in Ukraine.1688    Most dangerously, this administration is undermining1689Article 5 in explicit ways. But the threat to NATO and to the1690security it has fostered is even more insidious than just that.1691    Here at home we are seeing a democratic backsliding and1692dangerous illiberalism take hold. When due process is infringed1693upon and the First Amendment is trampled upon we are not simply1694violating domestic norms and constitutional freedoms, we are1695communicating to Vladimir Putin that we no longer cherish the1696shared values that underpin our commitment to NATO.1697    We communicate we aren't willing to defend democracy here1698at home and, in so doing, that we are not willing to defend it1699overseas, that democracy and individual liberty are not1700principles that we will fight for.1701    And this is part and parcel of a broader global project1702aimed at dismantling democratic institutions and shifting1703toward totalitarianism.1704    NATO is and has been a crucial alliance for our shared1705national security goals and our shared values. And I intend to1706work with this committee, with serious members on this1707committee to ensure that we remain a leader and supporter of1708NATO's mission.1709    So, my question for you, Ambassador Smith, as someone who1710has represented the U.S. in Europe, I am curious what long-term1711strategic consequences could arise if the perception takes hold1712globally that the United States is retreating from our1713democratic values, and how could that impact NATO's unity, its1714mission, and its effectiveness?1715    Ms. Smith. Well, thank you very much, Representative, for1716that question.1717    Look, the NATO alliance is rooted fundamentally in our1718shared values. And our shared values starts and ends with a1719commitment to democracy, to the rule of law, to human rights,1720et cetera.1721    And, so, if we have a situation where certain allies are1722starting to question America's fundamental commitment to those1723democratic values, the foundation of the alliance simply won't1724hold. So, the United States needs to not only continue to1725ensure that it leads this alliance as it has done for now 761726years, but it has to be the beacon on those democratic values.1727Without it, the NATO project, again, simply doesn't work.1728    And it would be ultimately a win for China, for Russia, for1729Iran, for North Korea, and others to see the collapse of those1730shared values. So, the U.S. has a key role in maintaining them.1731    Ms. McBride. So, I want to build off of that point,1732Ambassador, specifically around the message it sends to China1733and Russia.1734    You know, I touched on in my opening comments how a1735receding of democratic norms, and values, and rights here in1736the United States could communicate to Vladimir Putin that we1737are less committed to the values that underpin NATO. So, I1738would love to hear your perspective on how that illiberalism1739here, how that democratic backsliding here could potentially1740embolden Vladimir Putin?1741    Ms. Smith. Well, we can't do anything, Representative, to1742signal to Moscow that we are backsliding on any of those core1743values. And we have to ensure that America's commitment to the1744alliance is ironclad.1745    It is there, NATO is there to defend our shared values. We1746do not want to give Russia any impression that we are backing1747away from that commitment.1748    Ms. McBride. And then, finally, you know, in terms of1749NATO's unity, I would love to hear a little bit more from you,1750Ambassador, about the public attacks by U.S. leaders on1751longstanding NATO allies, and how that is impacting or1752potentially could impact cohesion and mutual trust within NATO?1753    Ms. Smith. Well, look, we have been in this alliance for 761754years, and we argue all the time. I am here to tell you, as the1755U.S. Ambassador I spent each and every week having debates,1756fierce debates, sometimes shouting debates with our closest1757allies. That is the way it goes in the alliance. It is like a1758family. Everyone feels comfortable arguing.1759    But what you don't want to do is let those fierce debates1760internally boil over and give leaders around the world,1761autocrats, the feeling that NATO unity is cracking. You have to1762take those arguments head on but work toward unity.1763    And what I want to see is this administration re-assuming1764and taking on that leadership role in the alliance, calling out1765Russia for its aggression and indiscriminate attacks on1766civilians inside Ukraine, and putting maximum pressure, not1767just on Iran, but maximum pressure on the Russians.1768    Ms. McBride. Thank you.1769    I am over time. I yield back.1770    Mr. Self. The ranking member has agreed that we will have a1771second round.1772    So, I recognize myself for 5 minutes. And I will start out.1773I have got a potpourri of questions here.1774    But, Dr. Gardiner, you responded to that last, and I1775thought you wanted to give a response to one of those last1776questions. If you will take a few seconds.1777    Mr. Gardiner. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.1778    And I would like to respond to the, to the remarks made by1779Representative McBride because I think the, the comments there1780were absolutely ridiculous. And the attack on the United States1781as a nation supposedly backsliding on democracy bears no1782relation whatsoever to, to reality.1783    And I am proud to live in the freest nation on earth. And1784the United States fights every day for freedom and democracy1785across the world. And I find it absolutely astonishing that a1786Member of Congress would compare the United States to Putin's1787Russia.1788    And the United States today is the beacon of democracy and1789freedom in the world. And we see that on a daily basis. And I1790just want to mention on the record that I find it absolutely1791appalling that a Member of Congress makes astonishing attacks1792on the United States, full of lies, that carries no relation1793whatsoever to reality.1794    American leadership is incredibly powerful on the world1795stage right now. And the United States is leading the NATO1796alliance based upon the principles of freedom, and democracy,1797and individual liberty. We are seeing that.1798    And we should be proud of that record, instead of trying to1799tear America down, as the left does all the time. We should be1800proud of everything this great nation stands for, and that1801includes at its very heart the freedom and liberty that is the1802foundation of this great nation. Thank you.1803    Mr. Self. Thank you.1804    And to get back to some of the details, I would like your1805opinion, Dr. Gardiner, of the arrest warrant for Dodik and the1806potential impact on the Western Balkans, and their refusal to1807carry through with that arrest warrant.1808    Mr. Gardiner. Yes. Actually, on that particular issue I am1809going to defer to my colleague Mr. Montgomery, who I think has1810a more detailed----1811    Mr. Self. Admiral.1812    Mr. Gardiner [continuing]. understanding of that particular1813issue. Thank you.1814    Admiral Montgomery. I do think it is a--thank you, Nile--I1815will tell you, I am not optimistic that the arrest warrant will1816be executed. I am confident that Dodik is a criminal and should1817be held accountable.1818    And I am afraid I think I share your sentiment concerning1819the previous questions, Nile, that the Balkans are a tinderbox,1820and that our inability to hold Vucic and Dodik accountable is1821eventually going to lead to inflammation and a deeper1822requirement for European and, potentially, America, the United1823States, to get involved.1824    So, I wish it would be executed properly. I suspect it1825won't, sir.1826    Mr. Self. Okay, very good. We had a very short conversation1827about the Suwalki Gap. That is in my mind the second most1828important issue facing NATO.1829    So, would you give us a tutorial on the Suwalki Gap and the1830Kaliningrad enclave and what that enclave represents to Russia?1831    Admiral Montgomery. Well, as a retired Army officer, I am1832not surprised you bring that up. But I agree with you1833completely, the Suwalki Gap is a narrow throat that Russia1834would like to grab in order to bring itself with, Greater1835Russia with Belarus, in contact with the Kaliningrad Oblast,1836which is the most heavily fortified geographic position in the1837world.1838    Despite the war in Ukraine, the Russians have not backed1839off one iota from packing weapons systems into there that hold1840Poland and the Baltic states at risk. The ability to close that1841I think 60 kilometer gap would be very rapid in war. But I1842believe the Russians can do that. And, certainly, with what1843they have learned in Ukraine they will be able to do that.1844    So, I share your concern about the Suwalki Gap. This is one1845of those issues where Europe and NATO need to be thinking very1846hard about how you persistently deter Russia from being able to1847do that.1848    I do not think you can get the weapons systems there five,1849six, 7 days after the fact. It will be lost by then. And the1850Baltic states and Poland share your concern.1851    Mr. Self. And my last point in my last 30 seconds is FMS1852reform. We have a great need to reform FMS. And I will just1853make that point on the record. We have still billions of1854dollars behind in weapons systems that Taiwan has already paid1855for. Saudi Arabia stands in front of Taiwan for the Harpoon1856missiles, having paid for the re-start.1857    So, it is something we cannot take our eye off the ball.1858Ambassador, you mentioned the defense industrial base. FMS1859reform I think is vital for the future of everything we have1860been talking about.1861    With that, I yield my time. And I recognize Mr. Keating.1862    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1863    There is a lot of misinformation, I believe, that is going1864around the U.S. and around the world regarding the commitment1865of our NATO allies, our European allies, in fact, the 501866country allies that all are working to, as one, to defeat1867Russian aggression in Ukraine.1868    So, I would like, Ambassador, could you take some time and1869straighten the record out here. I mean, the contribution from1870Europe is extraordinary. And so, if you could take some time1871and correct some of those misconceptions.1872    Ms. Smith. Yes. Thank you very much. There are some folks1873out there that believe that the U.S. has been supporting1874Ukraine over these last three-and-a-half years largely in1875isolation. And that is simply not the case. Our European allies1876have given an enormous amount of support to Ukraine. They have1877housed millions of refugees, they have provided critical1878economic and humanitarian support.1879    But they have sent weapons. Some countries have sent them1880everything they had. The Baltics, the Poles, a country like1881Romania that sent essentially all of its air defense, these1882contributions have been critical to what Ukraine has been able1883to do to defend its territory against Russian aggression.1884    So, I completely appreciate your point. I think it is1885important for folks to understand that this has been an effort1886not just with our European allies but with 50 countries around1887the world.1888    Secretary Austin, when he was Secretary of Defense,1889regularly convened 50 countries from around the world,1890including friends in the Indo=Pacific, to each month send more1891critical support to our friends in Ukraine. One of those1892meetings is happening today. And the U.S. Secretary of Defense1893will not be attending the UDCG, the Ukraine Defense Contact1894Group.1895    That is a shame in my mind. It is a group that requires1896U.S. leadership at the highest levels. And the United States1897started this group and it needs to continue to lead it.1898    Mr. Keating. Yes, the Contact Group is essential. And, in1899fact, it is a way the U.S. is leveraging, you know, their1900assets around the world, too. And so, I think it is critical in1901that regard.1902    I also wanted to just touch base. The Russian elections1903that occurred where they voted to have legitimate control over1904areas of Ukraine in violation of every international law that1905you could think of. How would you categorize those elections?1906    Ms. Smith. Well, it is a pretty short answer,1907Representative: it was a sham. And we cannot allow this to1908stand. In my mind, we cannot allow Russia to come in and make1909these assumptions and claims that the Zelenskyy administration1910is somehow a Nazi regime, that this territory that they are1911currently occupying belongs to Russia, that they have a right1912to own Crimea. None of this adheres to Ukraine's very clear1913territorial integrity and sovereignty. And we have to continue1914to stand up and push back against those types of Russian1915assertions.1916    Mr. Keating. Speaking of elections, in World War II martial1917law declared in the U.K. They did not have elections then.1918    Ms. Smith. Correct. Correct.1919    Mr. Keating. And it is somewhat similar with----1920    Ms. Smith. So, yes.1921    Mr. Keating [continuing]. the Ukraine Constitution.1922    Ms. Smith. Right. Right now under martial law.1923    Mr. Keating. There is martial law.1924    Ms. Smith. They are not voting. Yes.1925    Mr. Keating. Martial law was called because of the Russian1926aggression.1927    Ms. Smith. Because of the war. Correct.1928    Mr. Keating. Their constitution would not allow that even1929if they wanted to have that; is that correct?1930    Ms. Smith. Indeed.1931    Mr. Keating. Admiral Montgomery, I don't think we spent1932enough time talking about Putin and who he really is. You1933mentioned that in some of your remarks. And we are looking at1934this negotiation that is going on which is, you know,1935negotiations are always a good thing. Talking is always a good1936thing.1937    But how would you categorize Putin's response to these1938negotiations?1939    Admiral Montgomery. The offer in Istanbul last week was an1940insult to President Trump. President Trump has told President1941Putin several times, come to the table with a serious deal. And1942he has told him stop doing the, you know, Vladimir, stop doing1943the bombing.1944    I thought there was a potential this time, there would be a1945reasonable response. But, instead, it was, you know, just a1946laundry list of every illegitimate Russian claim to Ukraine,1947and every ridiculous request that they basically neuter1948themselves, demilitarize, and take no western support.1949    It was an absolute insult to President Trump, who has given1950President Putin more than enough time to come to the right1951answer.1952    Mr. Keating. Great.1953    My time is expired. I yield back.1954    Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from Nevada,1955Ms. Titus.1956    Ms. Titus. Thank you.1957    Admiral, the Trump administration was not that one that1958eliminated the Global Engagement Center but, rather, you,1959pointing in this direction, I said it wasn't me, but you meant1960Congress simply allowed it to expire.1961    Now, the White House Republicans did indeed refuse to1962include the extension of sunset in the Fiscal Year National1963Defense Authorization Act. And based on some sense to debunk1964conspiracy theories.1965    But the Biden administration tried to keep their work going1966by putting this mandate in the State Department's Counter1967Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Office, the1968R/FIMI.1969    Now, unfortunately, then on April the 16th Secretary Rubio1970announced the closure of that office as a way to, and I quote,1971``champion free speech.'' Now, since you asserted that Congress1972failed in its decision to not reauthorize the GEC, do you also1973believe that the Trump administration failed in its decision to1974close the R/FIMI?1975    Admiral Montgomery. So, and I know your staff will go do1976more research, and you will read that I have written three1977articles condemning the closure of the Global Engagement1978Center, and President Trumps' closure of this.1979    I absolutely believe we need to counter disinformation. The1980closure of the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of1981Investigation, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security's1982disinformation shops was equally reckless by this1983administration.1984    So, I absolutely think that we should be looking for1985disinformation. Russia and China are aggressively conducting1986cyber-enabled economic warfare and influence operations1987campaigns against this country.1988    But one final thing I will say is the most deleterious,1989worst information operations campaign going on in this country1990is the use of TikTok. TikTok, you in Congress properly banned1991it last year. President Biden signed it into law.1992    TikTok is being used by China to change the social1993narrative in our country to tell the 180 million 18 to 35 year1994olds who use it that the United States is not a great country,1995that China, that China's suppression of Uyghurs is Okay, that1996China's suppression of Taiwan is Okay, that the Russian1997invasion of Ukraine is Okay, and that Hamas' terrorist act1998against Israel is Okay.1999    TikTok needs to be banned. To me, that is the worst2000disinformation operation. But I would agree with you completely2001that we need a global, something like the Global Engagement2002Center. I have argued for it for about two-and-a-half years2003now.2004    I was just pointing out that the actual problem was2005Congress failing to reauthorize it.2006    Ms. Titus. Thank you. I just wanted the record to clearly2007show who all was responsible, and what the whole context of the2008story was. And if I--if you were answering it the way I hoped2009you would I would take offense that you think my staff has to2010do my research. But you can write you own books.2011    But thank you for that answer.2012    Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from Illinois,2013Mr. Schneider.2014    Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Chairman Self.2015    And before I do ask my question, Dr. Gardiner, I have to2016tell you I take great offense at your--respectful people,2017honorable people can disagree on policy. To question Democrats'2018commitment and patriotism is unacceptable.2019    I love my country. And I know my colleagues do. I am2020committed to the country like Rear Admiral Montgomery,2021Ambassador Smith, our colleagues here. We take an oath to2022defend the Constitution, and we do that with seriousness and2023integrity.2024    So, I take great offense. We live in a great country. We2025are a beacon to the world. I am the father of a Navy veteran.2026Like Admiral Montgomery, he was a surface warfare officer. And2027we can disagree. We don't need to besmirch each other's2028commitment to our country.2029    Rear Admiral Montgomery, in your opening remarks you2030stated, and I am going to quote you here, ``I firmly believe2031that NATO can serve as a bulwark that brings trans-Atlantic2032alliance through the challenges posed by a rapacious2033authoritarian State, Russia, and the China-led axis of2034aggressors that supports and enables Russia.'' And I agree on2035that.2036    My question for you: is it can, or is it must? Must NATO be2037at that forefront?2038    Admiral Montgomery. In my written I said ``can,'' and in my2039oral I said ``must,'' because I believe it is must.2040    I mean, look, there is no substitute for us. I agree with2041Nile and his characterization of French President Macron's2042initiatives here. They are going to go nowhere. It needs to be2043us. It needs to be NATO.2044    And myself, Chairman Self, others have served with NATO2045over 40, 50 years. We are the bulwark of democracy in Europe.2046And we are the only thing that is strong enough to defeat them2047together.2048    Europe has to spend more. We have to spend more. We are2049going to go below 3 percent in real GDP, defense spending in2050GDP, not the numbers that we get from some disarmament agency2051in Scandinavia. We are going to go below 3 percent over the2052next two to 3 years.2053    We need to get ours up. They need to get theirs up. It is2054the only way we can defend ourselves.2055    Mr. Schneider. And I think it was Ambassador Smith, you2056talked about it, we need to do that in a coordinated way. We2057need to have a strategy. And a strategy follows a vision of the2058role of NATO, what role it plays today but also into the2059future.2060    What do you see as the role for NATO looking to the future?2061    Ms. Smith. Well, I would like to see Russia--I mean, I2062would like to see the alliance complete that strategy on2063Russia. I think existing in a world where the allies can't2064agree on a Russia strategy doesn't bode well for the future in2065this huge surge of spending.2066    But from a more technical perspective, I think NATO can2067help drive co-production. We have heard a couple of great2068examples today.2069    I often point to the case of Spain, Romania, Germany, and2070the Netherlands coming together with Raytheon to build the GEM-2071T missiles for the Patriots. Those types of co-production2072efforts are the wave of the future. And NATO can help that2073happen, but not if the alliance is hemorrhaging trust and2074Europeans feel like they want to back away from us.2075    So, the U.S. has to recommit. This summit is going to be2076very important in terms of the signals the Trump administration2077is going to send. And it should, in my mind, allow the alliance2078to move forward both with the Russia strategy, and allow it to2079push forward on those joint ventures that I just mentioned.2080    Mr. Schneider. I couldn't agree more. You answered,2081actually, my followup question, which is that U.S. role.2082    What is the impact of messages coming from the2083administration, the going one way on Monday, and a different2084way on Tuesday, and a complete reversal on Wednesday? What is2085the impact of getting to the strategy and the vision we need to2086achieve?2087    Ms. Smith. Let me give you just one example of where we are2088with public attitudes in Europe.2089    In Denmark they have created this app on your phone so that2090you can go through the store and find U.S. products so that you2091can avoid them. That is where we are right now.2092    Mr. Schneider. I attended a----2093    Ms. Smith. In Denmark.2094    Mr. Schneider. Yes. I attended a wedding in Canada last2095weekend, week before last, and----2096    Ms. Smith. It is not good. It is not good.2097    Mr. Schneider [continuing]. we went in to buy a bottle of2098wine. There is no American alcohol in the liquor stores. And we2099are seeing that.2100    Rear Admiral Montgomery, let me give you the last word2101here. What is the impact of the inconsistency from the U.S. if2102we are going to achieve the strategy you talked about, if NATO2103must lead the way?2104    Admiral Montgomery. As a military planner, I ran our plans2105in U.S. European Command and our operations in the U.S. Pacific2106Command through my career. And the one thing that any military2107planner or operator wants is consistency. We need to have2108consistent, stable resources, operational plans, and direction2109from senior leadership.2110    In the end, the President makes the direction, and we need2111to flex to it. But consistency is always a preferred condition.2112    Mr. Schneider. Thank you.2113    And with that, I yield back.2114    Mr. Self. I thank the witnesses for their valuable2115testimony, the members for their questions.2116    The members of the subcommittee may have some additional2117questions for the witnesses. I will ask you to respond to those2118in writing. I will certainly have one.2119    Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have 5 days to2120submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the2121record, subject to the length and limitations.2122    Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.21232124                                APPENDIX21252126                              ----------21272128               Material Submitted for the Hearing Record2129[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT21302131                                 [all]