in washington, d.c. over the summer. ♪ >> good morning, everyone. on behalf of the atlantic council, it's my pleasure to welcome you to today's event, nato at 75, an alliance for a better world. 75 years ago today, 12 countries came together to sign the

washington treaty. marking the very beginning of what would become the world's most powerful and successful military alliance. in 1949, nato was founded to provide collective security and defense and prevent the outbreak of yet another world war. in the 75 years that have followed, nato has welcomed 20 additional allies, all committed to safeguarding democratic values and to promoting peace and stability in the euro atlantic region and beyond. this anniversary is unquestionably a moment to take stock and celebrate the accomplishments of the most successful alliance in history. these celebrations are taking place against a backdrop of tremendous uncertainty. war is raging in europe and the global security environment is increasingly volatile. now more than ever, it's imperative for nato allies to stand together to reaffirm their

collective support for a secure, peaceful, and democratic global community. today is not just a chance to reflect on the past, so it's also a moment to consider the next 75 years. conversion challenges from climate change to emerging technologies will fundamentally alter the battlefield of tomorrow. the alliance must always be focused on the future and adaptive to the threats that lie over the horizon. , for that reason convening such as this one are integral to the center for strategy and security which speaks -- six to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the united states and the world. the center honors general brent scroll craft's legacy of service and embodies the ito's of commit metoo security support for u.s. leadership in cooperation with allies and partners and dedication to the

mentorship of the next generation of leaders. as part of this mission, the center's transatlantic security initiative shapes and influences the debate on the great security challenges facing the alliance and its key partners. today's event is part of the atlantic council's programming, organized in advance of the 2024 nato summit here in washington, so be on the lookout for much more to come from the council in the coming months. in this spirit, we have organized and convened two panels. the first brings together a group of atlantic council experts to highlight the alliance's historic underpinnings and to celebrate the alliance's enduring legacy. the second panel will look to future the voices of next-generation experts and leaders to discuss how nato can secure its future for the next 75 years. this first panel will be moderated by my colleague, dr. met craig, vice president and

senior director of the atlantic council's center for strategy and security. thank you also much for being here with us today and with that, matt, i will pass it to you. matt. great thank you so much -- matt: great. thank you so much for that introduction. the anniversary provides a value opportunity both to look back at nadel' accomplishmentss -- nato's a compass and it's over the past 75 years but also to look into the future to ensure the alliance remains fit for the challenges ahead. to discuss these issues, i am fortunate to be joined by a distinguished panel. directly to my left, we have vice chair of the atlantic council's center for strategy and security. she's also a senior fellow with the belford center at harvard university and a former under secretary of state for global affairs. to her left, we have a senior fellow in the transatlantic security initiative at the atlantic council center. he is also in the atlantic

council's your center and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for europe and nato policy. two has left, we have senior fellow in the transatlantic security initiative at the atlantic council. to her left, professor athlete u.s. army war college and a senior fellow in the transatlantic -- the atlantic council initiative. before we begin, just a few housekeeping notes for our audience. the discussion is of course on the record. we will leave time at the end of the discussion for audience questions so we encourage both are in person audience and virtual participants to join the conversation. there is a standing microphone in the room for those of you in person. for virtual participants, you can log your question on askac.org. we also invite you to interact

with us on x, formerly known as twitter and use the #stronger withallies. with that, let's begin the discussion. maybe everybody does not think about nato everyday. what is nato. ? what does it do? >> thank you for hosting this panel. it's an important anniversary. 75 years is a long time. that alone testifies to the success of the alliance. going from 12 signatories that signed the document in washington to now 32. nato serves as the institutional core of this transatlantic community of democracies and was established organize and orchestrate the combined political, economic and military power of these democracies. it has done that with great effect. what nato is known first and foremost for is its role as a military institution.

organizers -- in this regard, the alliance has been history's most successful alliance. it enabled nato, the transatlantic community to win the cold war without firing a shot, it brought peace to the balkans. i have seen, my colleagues have seen firsthand how forces operate, sometimes under the nato flag in afghanistan and iraq. their interoperability, effectiveness, coverage rooted in the camaraderie and collective miss fostered through nato. it's an alliance backed by $55 trillion in gdp. that is almost half of not -- if not more than half of global gdp. that is 10 times that of russia more than twice that of china. it is backed by the political legitimacy that comes from a community of democracies. i believe that's a real force multiplier. it's a message to our adversaries. it's a motivator for our troops. these military, economic and

ideological advantages are exactly what nato brings to the table and they are important in an age, as jenna pointed out, of increasing complexity, increasing danger and lethality, and the balance base that our armed forces have to operate in. >> wonderful. you mentioned some of the accomplishments looking back, winning the cold war without firing a shot. that's where i would like to continue, looking back at the history. ambassador, maybe we will come to you next. looking over the 75 years, what do you see as some of the major challenges that the alliance has overcome? what do you see a some of the major accomplishments? >> on this >> let me get my thanks to the atlantic council. to jenna for opening, to you for moderating. and for the council just commemorating the anniversary. and as we go forward to the summit, this summer, hosted by the united states. so what are some of the challenges and accomplishments?

let's not take it for granted. in mentioned -- ian mentioned we were the first to sign the north atlantic treaty. what was the question about expansion and enlargement? there were many debates and discussions about it. by the way, if you asked me in my lifetime, what i have expected defend land or sweden to become members? no, i really wasn't sure that what happened in my own lifetime, and here we are. it's not just only the expansion of those core members, but also, if you look in terms of the number of the nato nonmembers across the globe, which is also a very significant attachment and investment to the very purpose of the alliance as you laid out. one was the whole question of enlargement itself, which has i think forward rather

thoughtfully and strategically and successfully. and then there is the issue of burden sharing. we will dive more into that, but let me at least say that has been the question of what member states put into it. i'll just fast-forward. i think that given the kinds of discussions and debates that have taken place, i look at where we are now, over half of the members are investing over 2% of the minimum, and even over. i will single out. we had recently the foreign minister of poland who was here speaking at the council. he mentioned the fact that poland is putting 4% of its gdp. and challenging other countries as nato members. so this has been an issue, but i think it has moved substantially and significantly in the right direction, where it is a shared -- and it is burden sharing.

let me mention another. that is, i remember the big debates about algeria. and nato was focused on just the region for all the reasons that ian stated. the question was, should it have a role in other places? afghanistan was one of the ones that loomed large years back. so here we are at this time, i'm very struck by the fact that jens stoltenberg, the nato secretary-general, actually has been speaking to the issue about the threat from the indo-pacific. here, he is referring to china in particular and what role nato should have on in that regard. to me, that's also a real market success. the fact that it has been so unified and successful in terms of the region. but it is looking at what role it could play beyond. that was a challenge before, and now, it's one that really presents engagement. it's a question for nato and the

future. we will dive into that also in our discussion. what form that will take? what does that actually mean for nato. i will conclude on this. it's just on the occasion of this anniversary. i was struck by the fact that stoltenberg in releasing the annual report of nato mentioned all the kinds of challenges that are confronting the global community at this time. and he said, but you know what, i'm proud of the fact that we're a strong alliance and actually because of these very challenges, we have become a stronger alliance even from what we were in the beginning. matt: wonderful, thanks ambassador dobriansky. sticking with the history, elizabeth, maybe will come to you next. our ceo fred kemp has a new piece out today about the 75th anniversary and he argued one of the advantages the founders of data had -- of nato had his the memories of world war ii were still fresh. that was the motivator. he notes president truman when

he signed the treaty on april 4, 1949 and he said "twice in recent years, nations have held the sickening blow of unprovoked aggression. our people to whom our governments are responsible demand these things shall not happen again. we are determined they shall not happen again." how important was that recent memory of old were to in the founding of nato, and have current nato leaders forgotten those lessons or are acting with less urgency than truman and the other founders? >> you are right. we don't have any nato leaders today who remember world war ii. some of us don't remember the cold war. that is how young nato is these days. but i remember my very first experience on the labor market was here on the atlantic council many years ago, david atchison was still around. yes, how do you manage and give

purpose to an alliance when you don't know what it is you are trying to prevent, because you have never experienced it? you can conceptualize it, that is a good problem to have. it is to the credit of nato to prevent the things those early leaders had experienced. i think what we have within nato is it completely underestimated a group of people who have seen some of the bad things people can do to one another. and have helped limit that harm. that is all the soldiers who served within our armed forces. they are often underappreciated. these men and women are many ages, including very young ages, who do the hard work of nato on a daily basis. serving in other countries as well, including some countries

experiencing armed conflict. this is something we can draw on. i'm not saying they should be elevated to secretary-general. but it is hundreds of thousands of people within our countries, across america, and a number of other nato states who have experienced other nato member states on the ground -- have experienced, other countries as well -- on the ground, have the incredible expertise and experience serving as part of nato. and are as a result phenomenal ambassadors for this alliance. i was talking to somebody there today, i can't remember where it was, but anyway he had brought with him the dog that had served with him in that country. and he referred to it as a nato dog. this is how proud we are of having served within this alliance. i hope we will hear from them more now that nato turns 75.

and we have this incredible group of people who are not policymakers but represent data in the best -- nato in the best sort of way on the basis of what they have done. matt: the atlantic council was founded in 1961 to support the transatlantic relationship and support nato. i'm glad you mentioned to dean atchison because he was the founder of nato, but also the founder of the atlantic council. we still have his cabin chair on the 10th floor. but we don't yet have a nato dog. maybe we should get a dog here at the council. john, let's go to you next. there has always been strong bipartisan support for nato in the united states, but in recent years, it has become more politicized. has nato benefited the average american? does it benefit the average american today? >> i think it does. there are four big reasons how it does. before i explained that, let me first mentioned that i'm a u.s.

government employee. let's start with the bedrock values that we all share. these are democracies for the most part. admittedly, some countries have had a mixed relationship with that. portugal, one of the founding members could it really be called a democracy until the early 70's. some countries have moved farther away from the ideal but generally this community shares our values. and that's important for us. for the second reason. at the strategic level, that is competing with our adversaries, and engaging with them and defending our interests. when we talk about strategic competition with the chinese were the russians, the allies that we have our our comparative advantage. russians, the chinese don't have the same allies that we do across the globe. center, anchored really in europe and the transatlantic space. that brings me to the third reason why nato is a good value for americans today.

at the material level, this is a dive into the operational weeds, but we couldn't do what we do in the world without having allies by our side. i'm thinking about the bird and that they share, for example, in the search in afghanistan. they provided a third of the troops involved in that surge. although the alliance per se was not involved in iraq in an operational way, allies in europe contributed about a third to the surge in iraq. more recently outside the military realm, we couldn't have pulled iran to the negotiating table over its nuclear arsenal without europeans engaging in the same sanctions regime. what we see unfolding in ukraine is a burden sharing good news story. they are, the european allies are outpacing the americans in terms of commitments in military, financial and humanitarian terms. let me turn to the fourth and from my perspective the most

important reason why nato and european allies matter to americans. that is economics. it is ironic of me to suggest this because economics is barely mentioned in nato's founding treaty which we are celebrating this week. however, if we look back at the history of why nato was founded, it was founded as a way of consolidating the security and stability in europe, and allowing europe to rise from the ashes of world war ii. that economic relationship was vital to the u.s. economy. it is even vital today, as vital as back then arguably. today, the trade and investment relationship between our country and europe is around $1.5 trillion. that is twice the trade and investment relationship we have with china. if you look at jobs, 5 million american jobs are directly tied to european companies operating in our country. in contrast, chinese firms support about 160,000 american jobs.

stability in europe is vital. to their economy and ours. economics is the most important reason why this relationship and the alliance matters out on main street. matt: thanks, john. you provoked some responses. a couple of the other panelists want to jump in on this. paula? >> elizabeth had her hand. i was inspired by your response. i was thinking light opening only addressed certain points, but there were other points to be addressed. one of which is, as you were speaking and emphasize the importance of the camaraderie, the alliance, that we can't achieve our own necessarily security interests alone. that certainly adds to our base. that reminded me of 9/11. and the fact that on 9/11, that article five was invoked. i will let ian elaborate on

article five, but certainly an attack on one is an attack on all. this is consequential because it was the first and only time that article five had ever been invoked. it just speaks to the strength of that importance of the alliance. that other countries were prepared to step forward. and to think about what are the ramifications? the other thing you may be think of is, in terms of a change of the president, it is even a change of warfare. that was built into your question because i'm thinking of cyber. thinking of all the new technological dimensions. how also there's a real advantage economically, militarily to actually collaborating together in the context of the alliance. those are the two points i wanted to mention. but you definitely reminded me of article five and the fact

that other countries in the alliance immediately invoked article five. on behalf of the united states and the attack on us on 9/11. matt: important point, 9/11 being the only time article five was invoked. important reminder. elizabeth? >> to what john said about the value that nato provides for american taxpayers, i'm not trying to be pollyanna-ish about nato, it has a number of problems we may address later but one aspect i don't think gets enough credit, or any credit at all, is the fact that it gives u.s. service members an opportunity to serve in different countries. and get experience not just working, but experience. university students have to pay big money. i saw the other day, a group of american soldiers in poland, but

that something that ordinarily you only get on a semester or year abroad, and that is expensive and this is served within the u.s. military. if you are selected, you can go to one of the nato member states where the u.s. military has present and to work there. but you also experience the country, which is why the u.s. military, this is one reason the military has more exposure and more cultural understanding of other countries than i think almost any other part of u.s. society. that is incredible value for money. >> simple burden sharing fact. whenever nato undertakes a military operation in support of u.s. interests, every european soldier that participates in that mission. basically it counts for three u.s. soldiers that don't have to participate. for every soldier on the field, one is training on the mission. in 2011, there were 40,000

europeans, 4000 non-american troops serving. there was 120,000 americans that didn't have to serve in a combat zone. that is very effective burden sharing. a real asset for the united states that nato provides. matt: wonderful. this is been a great look back. we can look at the history. i would also like to look forward. of course, we have the nato summit coming up this summer. historic summit, 75th anniversary. it will be held here in washington. and the atlantic council is honored to once again be selected by nato as one of the official partners for putting on the public forum. we're looking forward to that. there is likely to be several major themes at the summit, deterrence and defense, the future of ukraine, burden sharing, nato's role in the indo-pacific for the first time in nato's strategic concepts featured china prominently recently. let's look at challenges for the summit and ahead for the

alliance. paula, maybe we will start with you. i know ukraine is of interest, but the indo-pacific as well. >> those will be the two i will take on. then we will pass it down the line here. i think that the summit, one of the key questions will be ukraine's membership in nato. i think it is crucial that the summit demonstrates that not only membership to ukraine should be extended definitively and clearly. but secondly, it's not just only about the extension of this but actually the beginning of the process. the atlantic council did sponsor a letter, which was nonpartisan. you had republicans, democrats, independents who came together and basically wrote in the letter how this summit provides

the opportunity to formally and actively begin the accession process. i was one of the signatories. there were many others who were signatories to this. specifically, i think the summit has to highlight that issue. and in a way which isn't going back to bucharest. it moves from bucharest and certainly moves on from vilnius. the signal that it sends is an imperative one. you mentioned deterrence. that is crucial in terms of sending a signal about deterrence relative to ukraine and in its fight for its own sovereignty, it's virtual independence and freedom from russian aggression. on that one, definitely, i think there has to be clarity. u.s. leadership on this. and a way in which we move forward very directly. i know there are going to be challenges to this, of course

there are. not all the countries are embracing this approach. but to me, between now and then, this is something we have to work on aggressively. and think about how to send a clear signal forward that that process is en route actively. secondly, with regard to the indo-pacific, one of the core questions before nato is what kind of arrangement nato should have in the indo-pacific? i'm very glad that stoltenberg and nato itself has been actively pursuing this. there is a debate and discussion about what form and shape that could take. i think it is appropriate to look for some kind of permanent presence in the indo-pacific region. the manifestation could be that of a kind of a facility, a mission, and no less in terms of our own military animus in this

regard and that could take different shapes and forms. as you started with the first point about deterrence, that's a core responsibility of nato. and in that regard, i think that both of these issues are key ones which will be spotlighted this summer when the united states hosts the nato summit. matt: good point on ukraine and nato's role in the indo-pacific. ian, you have also written on what nato should be doing in the indo-pacific but have thoughts on these other topics as well. where should the alliance beheaded? >> let me focus on what i think will be the defining issue for the summit. it is a defining issue when it comes to nato's future. i really believe nato's future is found in the outcome of its defense against russia's invasion. nato's future, its credibility

as a deterrent institution, is going to be found in the rain -- ukraine. russia's invasion of ukraine will be the defining contextual driver of this summit. it will define this summit pray when i'm concerned of is that if we have a summit in the context of a ukraine that continues to be at stalemate. four is losing territory. we are going to be given a path to nato membership or not? it's not been put on a winning track. this summit will really damage nato's credibility. because how is it that an alliance with a gdp of $55 trillion, a defense budget of one point $3 trillion -- 1.3 trillion dollars, not to mention the best fighting forces in the world is unable to defeat an adversary that is 1-20 fifth of its gdp. its defense budget some where between -- 1/10 of

that of nato. it's fighting forces are no match to that of nato. so what does that say about nato, it convenes this summit, and ukraine is not winning this war decisively. if we will have a successful summit that will inspire confidence in the alliance continued ability to deter aggression, the summit has to put ukraine onto a path to victory. to do that will require five things. it will require the alliance to adopt ukraine were objectives. total territorial reconstitution. anything short of that gives the wrong message to the ukrainians. two, we have to give ukraine the weapons they need now at the pace they need, the volume they need, and without restrictions on how they are used against legitimate russian military targets in russia. third, we have to engage the russian people.

weaponize truth. tell the russian people what's going on in ukraine, the atrocities that their own people are committing. we're not doing that like we used to do that during the cold war. we have got to have serious economic sanctions. the fact that russia's economy grew by 3% last year shows something profoundly inadequate in our strategy and political will. i agree completely with paula, the strategy for ukraine has to include a clear path into nato membership, not just after the war is ended, but article five is the only thing putin understands and respects when it comes to communicating that ukraine is not for the taking. matt: the war in ukraine will be a major issue at the summit this summer. another major issue will be burden sharing. this is been an issue throughout the history of the alliance but it has been taking on more salience recently. as elizabeth is our european

representative on the panel, what do you think of these american complaints that the europeans aren't pulling their weight? what do you see as burden sharing and the future of the alliance more broadly after the summit? >> it is a great deal of unfairness when people say europe should do this or that. a number of europeans here in the room know that the contributions among european member states are quite different from one another. one might argue some are more committed to nato than is the u.s., some not so much, so credit to them. maybe let's call out the laggards rather than europe as a continent. but one of the basic challenges for nato is a positive one, an exclamation of its own success. people wanted to be lots of things it didn't intend to

be 75 years ago to this day when it set out to defend the territory of those original member states. that was it. there was nothing about hybrid warfare, nothing about the indo-pacific or any of that. and now, understandably, people looking at nato seeing a successful alliance want it to be and to do more. that also, i think, is linked to deterrence so how do we create deterrence when we want nato to do more things than it was originally set out to do? this is where the burden sharing actually looks quite a bit better than it does if you look at defense spending. a number of european countries had excellent solutions when it comes to societal resilience. resilience is one part of deterrence. the u.s. is not good for reasons having to do with geography and maybe culture. but the advantage of having all these different allies in nato's

you have a group of countries right there from whom you can learn, who have models that may work, and if they don't work 100%, you can adapt them. that's another great thing about having this alliance, as you said, john, is not just the immediate function of nato, the fact that you have friends at the ready who can help you. for example, as we speak, sweet is introducing a national grid type of service. that might be a solution for other nato member states. i think it would be. even the united states. then you have a country willing to deliver that, to tell you how it works and how to set it up and give you the blueprint for how to do it. matt: wonderful. john, i'd like to ask about deterrence and defense prayed last year at the nato summit, nato agreed to new regional plans. they have been described as the first real serious defense plans for nato since the end of the cold war. does nato have the right

strategy for deterrence and defense? does it have the force structure it needs? >> there>> has been a real evolution in the approach to this topic. starting in 2014, russia's first invasion of ukraine, the alliance began to turn around defense spending. we have seen an uptick since 2015. that effort has now been on steroids since 2022 and russia's second invasion of ukraine. at the same time, the alliance has gotten more serious about its approach on the strategic level, when it up or identified russia as the primary threat. very different to its last strategy. if we step down on the operational level, here is where we see the alliance beginning to engage in a more deliberate process of thinking about how it would respond to russian aggression on allied territory. we saw last year the alliance approved a new set of operations

plans designed specifically to counter russian aggression in different parts of europe. we're seeing on full now, this year, the development of more tactical, regional-specific and domain-specific plans that will further flesh out what nato needs, where and how quickly. the challenge at the alliance is resourcing all that. the first part of that is increased defense spending. that's all going the right direction. i have concerns it is not occurring quickly enough and a degree that is great enough in the big players. by that, in europe, i mean the u.k., france, germany and italy. those countries account for two thirds of nato defense spending. as their defense spending has been trending upwards, it is not going up at a pace that is high enough, fast enough. if those four are pulling their weight at a severe pain level, it is difficult for nato to meet the capacitor requirements to

make good on these new plans. there is some risk there. the alliance will try to address this at the summit. we should expect to see a couple deliverables in this area of defense and deterrence. i'm hopeful this may be one of them. matt: paula and then ian. >> i was going to say i wanted to make three quick points. i wanted to underscore ian's point about the upcoming summit and the fact that it is a defining moment on the question about ukraine. and it will send a clear signal. you well articulated, and i agree with all the points you made in terms of the consequences, if the summit does not have clarity on this issue and really take a clear and bold stance. secondly, i wanted to comment briefly, elizabeth, i think the atlantic council is hosting this week or maybe it's next actually

a session -- will -- that will focus on the contributions of europe. i was struck by that particularly nato relative to ukraine. that's important because it is true. as you said, so many countries have stepped forward and in certain spheres doing much greater and much faster steps than the united states. fighter aircraft is one of them that a number of countries have moved forward significantly in europe. and we still haven't taken the steps that should be taken relative to ukraine. last, i want to mention i am very struck by statements made by lithuanian officials. a number of lithuanian officials have said the following, why doesn't the west stop setting up redline for itself, prudent doesn't have red lines, why is it that we are putting up redline's for ourselves?

that is an important statement. matt: ian, why are we putting up redlines for ourselves? [laughter] >> we are putting up redlines because senior officials in nato and here in washington, d.c. fear the risk of nuclear escalation. this gets to be an issue of not only capability but political will and resoluteness. the alliance was successful during the cold war not only because it was able to generate interoperable capable military forces and deploy them, and resource them. it was able to be successful because it demonstrated resoluteness and willingness to go to battle in defense of alliance territory and values. nowhere was this more clear than in the case of west berlin, an isolated enclave in east germany. it was never attacked because the soviets knew if it did get attacked, there would be a military response, unambiguous

response from the alliance. as we go into the nato summit today, we will highlight a lot of progress that john laid out. increased defense spending, uptick in strategic concept, our regional plans will more effectively leverage alliance capabilities. enhanced unity within the alliance. but is the alliance going to demonstrate at this summit is still has the will to fight? the resoluteness that made it so successful during the cold war? that answer will be provided by what it does and doesn't do on ukraine, and that's why i'm a little bit worried. matt: looks like elizabeth and john want to come in on this question of resoluteness, then we will go to the other participants. elizabeth? >> it is paradoxical, i think, considering how much the u.s. has done for nato and still does. that some policymakers contradict the urge to say something that totally undermines it.

they have essentially deliberately wiped $70 million off what the u.s. does for collective defense. i know this is the nature of a liberal democracy. we have a vibrant debate within society but sometimes i wish they would think twice about saying something because it may be perceived a certain way in countries that wish a sale and in countries that are america's allies. it is so harmful. every time you are told think twice before you say something, and i sometimes want to remind u.s. policymakers of that good advice every time in every classroom everywhere. matt: is that good advice to nato policymakers? >> it may be. i wanted to comment on the question of redlines. ian has got it right that a big part of the answer is we are concerned about escalation. justifiably so.

russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. we have a responsibility to pay attention and think about the consequences of our actions. there is another reason we set redlines. that is to signal to our public, but both here in the public and to our allies, that we will limit our engagement. the last two decades we have seen ourselves overextended. in conflicts with afghanistan. the estimates are between four and $8 trillion, that just scratches the surface of the impact on lives, not just americans but iraqis and our allies. this is a to to our public still has this hangover on this conflict two decades ago that we will not engage in that kind of conflict. at least not yet. circumstances could dictate otherwise but that is part of the signaling in enunciating these redlines. >> i want to look back since we

are moving on from the retrospective, which is, nato has been extraordinarily agile if you think about collective leadership. how many collective organizations do you know that have been able to adapt to circumstances over seven and a half decades? none. even companies struggle to adapt when circumstances change. when i was walking here this morning, i walked past a shop window. that was the thing 20 or 30 years ago where you used to make photocopies. kinko's didn't know how to adapt and now there is no kinko's there or anywhere else. nato has been incredibly agile. so credit to those leaders who have made it happen. those nato staff and indeed national leaders. >> at the end of the cold war, you had many international relations scholars saying nato

has outlived its purpose. it will come to an end, instead it became stronger. i have anymore more questions but we already have good questions from our online audience. we have an in person audience as well. i'd like to turn to you for your questions now for in person, if you'd like to ask questions, please come up to the microphone over here. that way, everybody will be able to hear you. our online participants as well. if you could identify your name and affiliation, that would be terrific. let's go to our first in-person question. >> can you hear me? gracias. i am currently at george mason university. my question is about the political approach of nato. the fact that it is the only defender of democracy in the world. ian brzezinski said we don't engage with people enough around the world, including russia, so how to improve the strategic

communication of nato to explain that it is a military alliance that defends democracies? matt: who would like to take that? >> during the cold war, we had a massive organization that basically served as our strategic medications. paula was a senior official in the united states information agency. we mistakenly shut it down in 1988. if you look at the state department today, the global engagement center has $60 billion budget. usia when it closed down had summer between over $3 billion. it had an infrastructure, a deputy director, an undersecretary, deputy secretaries. you had a career in strategic communications at usia. we need kept ourselves by shutting it down. we are not engaging the russian

people anywhere close to the way we did during the cold war. getting the truth out. weaponizing the truth and i mean that in a positive way. we are intimidated from doing that very has we feel -- because we feel that if we get into that game again, it will be perceived by prudent as a direct attack on his regime and could react a risk of escalation. it is a profound mistake, we have given our ability to change the course of this war, to change russia itself towards or a more constructive path. one that can be more lenient towards democracy. >> i will just add on to that. i think, sir, your question is a very relevant one area it's one that is crucial because it is not only about the military component. it is not only well stated about the economic dimension of it, as john well articulated, but it is about the political glue that

makes this stick and run. and in that sense, actually, i think there was a period where we were a bit complacent, in an earlier period of our alliance. we took a number of things for granted. ian is right in saying there has to be great activism in that. because these are the values that really bind us together. i will mention, on the positive side, and you're right, i agree with everything you have said, ian, but on the positive side, i think nato has the non-nato member status. i'm amazed there were so many countries across the globe, and every continent. every continent that fits into that category. and why? because of the values. they are drawn into the values and also, the actual underpinning of what the alliance really means. matt: elizabeth, please. >> one thing.

one of nato's challenges is that there are many people who like it very much and would like to spend a career sort of in the nato sphere, either inside the organization or think tanks, or national government and they then become the face of nato. and they don't realize how differently nato looks to people on the outside. if you are part of the choir of the converted, obviously, you love it. i think what would be useful for nato is to invite representatives on a regular basis from other parts of society, environmental activists. the rest of the world, if they were to find out what nato is about, they may see it in a different light. those sorts of people. i'm not saying -- i don't know whether that would convince russia that nato isn't the

belligerent organization russia likes to portray it as. but at least it would help nato acquire a somewhat different profile, and hopefully, a more positive one in the view of the many who are not of the nato "groupie" network. matt: we have many good questions online. john, first one for you because you were talking about the difficulties of resourcing our strategy. "in the lead up to the washington summit, analysts discussed the idea of a new defense spending target. 2% was set at wales two years ago at the summit last year, i think the phrase was 2% is a floor not a ceiling, but this says can you discuss why allies would shift to a new to when many allies failed to meet the current one, what can the alliance do to ensure it can resource its defense plans and ensure the alliances equipped with the tools it needs to be successful on battlefields of the future?

" >> great question considering the challenges the alliance faces right now. the wales summit in 2014 was the first instance in which the heads of state government committed to that pledge. it was previously made by defense ministers. who then go back to the capital and try to duke it out with their finance ministers and treasuries to get the money they committed to in brussels. now that we have this commitment of 2% of gdp which by the way, that is a crewed me -- crude measurement of burden sharing. the alliance could do a better job sharing some of this information regarding what we see in terms of burden sharing, not just the input but the output the alliance gets for its money. as we look to what's about to unfold this year, you mentioned that we saw 2% described as a floor last year in billing this. -- vilnius.

a careful reading would indicate 2% was already viewed as a kind of floor. i don't think what happened last year in vilnius was very new. i've been an advocate of something along the lines of 2.4 or 24, but i think the alliance will not commit to any sort of defense spending targets. the reason for that is it would show disunity within the alliance. there is not a consensus about committing to a new percentage of gdp for defense spending. but remember that the job of every summit, especially one held in washington, is to depict unity as much as we possibly can. disagreeing about where the mark should be would not be productive. how can the alliance get beyond this challenge? we have seen suggestions flooded. for example, the allies could issue at least in europe, issue bonds. the eu has spoken about this for defense spending. that may be a solution but -- as

the deeper challenge. namely, the defense budgets of individual alliance members. going into debt is one way to solve this problem but it's not an effective way. there needs to be a stronger re-examination of the priorities of our european allies. this touches on frankly, the last question about messaging. nato can do more to message what the threats are that confront the allies. how they are manifesting themselves today in our country, especially in europe, i'm thinking specifically of the threat posed by china today in europe. if we can get our citizens to realize the nature of the challenge, as we have seen since what he 14, defense spending can and will rise but it is getting that message to our citizens and the politicians ideally have the political courage to act on that. >> on the messaging, i have been two weeks ago to be in nato headquarters with a group that

was there and received the public affairs division. they have an outstanding public affairs division. meeting in terms of what they articulate, how they put it together, but i don't know how much they get out and around rather than people coming into nato. that was your point also. >> we are trying to do our part today with this event to get the message out. so, doing what we can. we will turn to our next in-person question. if you could please tell us your name and affiliation, that will be great. >> hello, my question is going to be quick. for mr. brzezinski. you spoke about the need to put ukraine on a path to victory. what is a victory for ukraine? >> victory is defined by the president and parliament and is supported by the vast majority of ukrainian people, total

territorial reconstitution back to the 1991 borders. matt: here at the atlantic council, we interviewed an assistant secretary of defense in the biden administration. we asked her this question and she said that is ukraine's goal and we support ukraine in their goal. the problem is you can look at alliance communiques and it will call for the removal of all russian troops from ukrainian territory. fortunately, the administration and allies don't always use -- terms. they talk about independent sovereignty of ukraine and don't refer at all to territory, inferring that there could be a compromise outcome acceptable to the west. that is the wrong message to be sending. i'm glad she was clear in that. i hope her other colleagues in u.s. government and across nato will be just as clear. >> by the way, your question was so relevant because others tried to answer it when ukraine hadn't already answered very quickly.

very consistent on that. matt: we are running short on time and we have a good forward-looking question. we talked about nato expansion, of course, over the years after the end of the cold war. the question says sweden and finland's accession means nato stands at 32 allies with other countries like ukraine knocking at nato's door. it seems that the enlargement debate is primarily focused on ukraine and less so on places such as georgia, moldova and bosnia. if we come back in 75 years, who are the new nato members who will have been admitted? >> flight answer immediately as i think the door should be open to those who want to become part of the alliance. georgia, in particular, of the countries mentioned has been actively pursuing nato membership. i think those that want to become part of the alliance and also are willing to be part of the, if you will come the

requirements of the alliance should be able to come in and do so. >> with just a few minutes left. maybe we should make this a closing around. nato enlargement or any other issues, 75 years from now what are the issues the alliance will have to tackle between now and then? >> looking forward, first and foremost, ensuring that ukraine wins. that's the most urgent task before the alliance. second, with a ukrainian victory and extension in nato membership to ukraine as part of that strategy, nato has demonstrated it will willingly accept the applications of other europeans. the at the georgians, moldovans, others in the western balkans to complete a europe that is whole, free insecure. and as paula was saying, a footprint in the indo-pacific, so we can be part of a

comprehensive transatlantic security strategy to deal with the challenges and opportunities in that region. a strategy that has a dapple medic dimension, economic but also military dimension. they can serve a or native role with the transatlantic community in that dimension. those with a kick challenges for the alliance over the next 75 years. >> climate change. not just related to how much co2 armed forces emit. that's a small technical issue. climate change will cause enormous national security problems of all kinds, including armed conflicts between countries relating to resources. but also, even more for europe, growth in population movements as people's home countries become uninhabitable. that is a severe challenge for every european country. there is no clear answer of what

to do about this but nato is a defense alliance involving mostly european countries. it is something that would come in nato's way regardless of whether or not one thinks we are doing enough to combat climate change, nato will have to confront whatever the results are of this really looming problem that we don't have an answer to. matt: john? >> the greatest challenge the alliance faces is coming to the realization slowly coming that the challenge we face from russia is not merely acute but a persistent one. our allies in the east, the baltic states, poland, romania and finland get this but it has been slow for americans to grasp the best. we have a notion that we can somehow park the russian threat, turn to the indo-pacific and let the europeans handle things there. that's unrealistic. first of all, there are incredible relationships between these two theaters, we cannot

ignore that. recognizing that there can no longer be a buffer zone between the rest and -- west and russia and managing the friction that is inevitable is the greatest challenge the alliance will face. >> mine is great power competition. in that sense, the alliance is absolutely key in this geopolitical challenge confronting western values and what we represent. matt: it's been a fascinating conversation. unfortunately we have come to the end of our time. i want to thank our distinguished panelists for sharing your expertise today. the atlantic council will continue our mission of shaping the global future together. nowhere is this mission more important than conversations like today's. it's been a letter to moderate today's event. i encourage all of you to be engaged with the transatlantic security initiative, especially as we accelerate our campaign toward the 2024 nato summit.

don't go anywhere. we have another panel coming up. we are thrilled to feature a group of next generation experts and leaders from across the alliance who will take part in a panel discussion, nato at 75, looking ahead to the next 75 years. that will begin in 15 minutes and will be moderated by alexandra sharp. thank you all again for joining us and stay tuned for the next panel. [applause]