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]

i am joined by a distinguished panel of next-generation experts. please help me welcome luka, an assistant director at the atlantic council's center for strategy. sissy martinez, program manager and research associate for the center of strategic international studies in russia, europe and eurasia program. and krista, a program officer with the transatlantic and defense program and the center for european policy and analysis. thank you for joining us. before we begin, a few housekeeping things for you guys. this is on the record.

we will leave time for audience questions. for virtual participants, please feel free to log your questions at ask ac.org. we encourage you to interact with us on x, twitter and use the #stronger with allies. i wanted to kick off the conversation with all of you guys. nato is facing an increasingly complex and volatile global security landscape, now and in the future. in your view, what do you anticipate being the biggest challenge for the alliance in the next 75 years? jason, you want to start us off? >> i'd be happy to. thank you to be atlantic council for organizing this discussion. what's the greatest challenge facing nato? in the near term, there is no argument that russia will be the greatest challenge facing the nato alliance. between its kinetic warfare and

its aggressive stance toward its neighbors, russia is going to be very much the near term challenge. looking further down the line, in the long run, china will be sort of a larger, existential challenge. not so much for nato as an alliance but the collective left read we will talk about that in a little bit. but i would say russia. >> i could easily say russia and china, like what jason said. i actually think that the biggest challenge to the alliance will be ourselves. maintaining cohesion, maintaining unity will probably be the biggest test to the alliance, given the ever-changing security of the environment. whether a new threat emerges or china in the pacific, i think keeping the unity within the alliance, remembering our core tasks and sticking to our core tasks and remembering why we are here at the end of the day, i think i will be the biggest

challenge. >> all right. >> i couldn't agree more with both of my colleagues. there is a really important part in thinking of the future of nato and the challenges that we will face. especially, i would say our generation, which is maintaining u.s. interest and engagement in nato. that has been something that i think, inevitably, is already being questioned and is being debated. how to maintain the u.s. engagement. not only with nato itself but the transatlantic security. what can we as the alliance but also that european allies as well as the u.s. itself do? that is something i'm not sure if we have found the answer just yet. i think nato has been going from crisis to crisis to try and find that resolve and impetus to sort

of revise the alliance. it was in 2019 where there was a famous brain-dead speech from president macron and nato and it seems like we are a whole world apart from that. it is important to maintain the currency of the alliance, given the weight it needs to survive. i think another factor when it comes to the challenges facing the alliance is adapting to the challenges of the battlefield of tomorrow. what i want to talk about here is the multi-domain operations and how we are going to need to think about the future of warfare. i think we spend a lot of time privately talking about the traditional threats that exist in the alliance and a lot of that comes from the fact that we have forgotten about investing

in our military and put it as a second priority, when it comes to our weapon systems and making sure we have enough in our stock to defend our territory. we need to start actively thinking, what are the steps we can take as the alliance as the individual member states, to prevent that from happening in the future. not only in the traditional realm but when it comes to the state realm. there are various challenges here that are facing the alliance. all of them are equally important. russia and china, absolutely. beyond that, there are carts the alliance will be facing that we still don't know but we need to start actively preparing for. >> thank you for having me and thank you for moderating this session today. of course, my colleagues are all right here. i would like to push back in one word, nato's relevance.

i think that is the biggest challenge the alliance will face. all of us here online and in person our nato nerds and fans. there are plenty of people in the united states and countries around the world that don't know what nato does. i think if nato really wants to fly for the next 75 years, we have to make sure there is future funding and countries are spending more than 2% on gdp, hopefully 3% very soon. i think, again, we are in a privileged club of people here that agree and know the value of the alliance. if you want an organization like nato to last another 75 years, you will have to demonstrate that you are a night it -- united. i'm from minnesota originally.

there are people who don't know what is nato, what does it do? the questions i get from friends should be concerning when we think about the future of the alliance. >> i want to stick with you for a second, krista. nato is facing a fundamentally different role than it once did. when it was founded in 1949, it had different priorities. now, we have the warfare and the security threats. we have plenty of nations around the world that are not nato's biggest fans. is the alliance falling short in its responsibilities and should there be an area the alliance should be investing in more? >> yes. first and foremost, i always believe that nato needs to focus on security and defense and stick to what it is good at. while nato is learning that we need to dabble in things like climate change and future

technologies that present problems when it comes to ai, i think that is important. i think the real challenge is making sure that nato does what it does best and that is security and defense alone. >> can i also add to that? i think so far the conversation has touched on many different arenas and problems that nato is facing. they are highlighting the fact that there is so much. i think it is important to remind ourselves that there is so much nato can do. i also think it is important to see that nato can't be everywhere and nato can't do everything and i think that realistic conversation, i don't know if it's being had. i would like to think it is being had. also, understanding where our

gaps are in the areas we can fill in the areas we cannot fill. looking to other partnerships worldwide or if there are other countries that can contribute in different ways as opposed to others, i think that question of will versus the question of capacity, the question of will being the u.s., that is also fundamentally important. we don't want to stretch ourselves too thin but also recognizing that we can't do everything. >> if i can also just add, i think one of the ways nato could invest more is invest in itself. look to the burgeoning calls for greater e.u. defense cooperation. this is an area where traditionally there has not been a lot of dialogue between nato and the e.u.. the other day, secretary blinken was in paris and he reaffirmed that that united states was open to and encourages european

allies to do more to contribute to their own defense. some of this begins with investing and the european defense industry, which has historically been massively underfunded. it is very fragmented along national lines. the e.u. put out a defense industrial strategy, showing they are aware of this and they are working to fix it. this is the kind of thing nato can start to do at home, within the capital of brussels, to begin to have these better conversations between european countries and nato allies. >> i want to, going off this, you have a strong work background with european defense. we are seeing, especially in the wake of russia's invasion of ukraine, a major defense buildup within european defense structure. what role should nato be playing in this transformation, if any? >> nato definitely continues to play an important role in serving as a space for all the allies in order to determine

what are our joint security priorities. most and partly, nato needs to have an active role in shaping the european security architecture. that, to me, is the most important aspect of any european efforts, specifically when it comes to the defense industry. not to say that that means in should only look toward nato when it comes to developing its own initiatives or rearming. but it does matter that nato has the experience of those 75 years . it provides the expertise for the allies to come together and determine what is the right way to proceed with it. where are the gaps and the alliances and the capabilities and where can they help the alliance move beyond the traditional defense.

think about the crisis management and be less so of an alliance that responds to the crisis and the war and those specific threats and more so an alliance that, to some extent, has a piece -- shapes peace and has a role in shaping peace globally. that is why european efforts are going to be specifically needed. secretary blinken's remarks in paris just before he went to nato in brussels were symbolic. when you think about secretary albright's speech, where she was warning about how and under what conditions the european defense efforts should be developing, this really is a massive step forward. i think the bigger issue is we now need to find who in europe is willing to really start leading the way and to see the

support for the european defense initiative. this is something that will include and require a lot of resources. a lot of time and a lot of coordination. europe will also need to grapple with some difficult decisions in how to manage its own security and which framework primarily to deal with this. we could take another hour and a half to go into those specifics. >> and then, with more recent news, we have sweden within the last month, joining nato. we had finland joining before. are we seeing a new wave of nato expansion and how might that impact the alliances dynamic with other countries, russia in particular? jason, maybe you want to start with this? i know you have a background in the nordic region. >> i'd be happy to. this is an issue i've been following closely. finland and sweden are incredible additions to the nato alliance.

they are some of the most capable military and all of europe. adding them to nato not only allows for a more secure baltic sea region, but also brings a tremendous amount of arctic know to the nato alliance as a whole. talking about specific examples, sweden has an incredible fleet of submarine capabilities in the baltic sea. the baltic sea is very shallow, very sallow needed. current -- salinated. it's a tremendous addition to the alliance. it is also reflective of how these countries view the security environment in europe. ever since russia invaded ukraine, there's been a lot of talk about where is russia going next? a lot of attention is being paid to moldova in particular. this is where both finland and

sweden have sweden have these debates at home whether eu security, article 40 27, whether that would be enough or whether nato, article five commitment for security would be the way to go. they opted for that. >> happily jump in as a latvian american. how happy we are to have our neighbors to the north join the alliance. there have been alarm bells for years. they were right as demonstrated by the illegal invasion. the baltics couldn't be happier to have our neighbors.

many people a generation older than us thought this was impossible, sweden and finland joining. it's truly wonderful. plug. i'm sure all of us here are in support of ukraine hopefully joining the alliance as well and the door needs to be open for georgia and bosnia. we are stronger together, as a more unified alliance. >> one of the issues that seems to be important is how to maintain credibility of the open-door policy? the question of ukraine's membership often gets attention in media. all of us hope credibility of

that promise will come to fruition soon. when it comes to other countries, either nato partner countries or have expressed interest in coming closer to the alliance, will be important for nato to demonstrate the appeal of becoming a member and the value. in particular, the u.s. ambassador to nato recently had press remarks before the ministerial warning about the increasing russian destabilizing influence across europe, particularly in the balkans. i find it incredible the extent to which russia has managed to infiltrate every core of life in

the western baltics. it has managed to slow down the completion of the regions path tornado and the eu. bosnia in particular, that's a strong movement taking place over the past couple years. in particular, since the invasion of ukraine. nato's credibility when it comes to the open-door policy is at stake but ensuring continued engagement of countries that expressed interest in nato remains strong. >> how much does ongoing conflict impact ukraine and surrounding nations, bosnia's entrance into nato? will that have a major influence on the ability to join the alliance? >> one thing we argued is

beginning the nato process does not immediately trigger world war iii or that article five applies. the beginning of talks would be a tremendous signal to ukraine its future is in nato, which we on this stage agree with and it would legitimize the fact they are fighting not just for their survival but for the west. inviting ukraine to begin those talks would mean so much. it is something, there is talk about whether the washington summit will see that invitation be extended and question whether that will happen but there is nothing to stop conversations from beginning with ukraine and moldova. >> we've seen a surge in

populism across nato members. turkiye, hungary, slovakia, the u.s. how does this splinter the alliance? we talked about cohesion earlier. >> agree, it's one of the biggest threats, maintaining cohesion. sorry, plus my thought a second -- lost my thought a second. when it comes to the threat of the far right in europe, there is instability this next year in euro and u.s. elections. we need to be real right now on what that messaging will look like for the summit. the summit is a message.

what will come out of it is a communiqué, agreement between the allies. there is still a question to remain whether ukraine gets an invitation. keeping that level of reality will be important here. maintaining expectations with ukrainians on what this will look like and we agree, ukraine will eventually be in nato. i don't think that will be in a few months. there is a long way to go. it's important to build that bridge toward membership. what that looks like, deeper integration into the alliance through interoperability, standards, etc. we will see how the summit goes in keeping cohesion but the framing around it will be the nato birthday party. everyone will be patting themselves on the backs.

there is a lot that needs to be done. i hope we are being realistic on what we can do. also keeping expectations throughout the world. >> two points and then a two pointer. your previous question on the effect of the war on the nato accession process. as much as the invasion has reinvigorated discussions about european enlargement, it's brought into debate nato accession. it's important. we've done it in a specific way for a specific time, 75 years. there have been changes to some extent but it requires certain benchmarks and standards implemented. when it comes to the future of nato, that debate has been

useful. there is thinking about, do we really need those things to be met to make sure europe stays secure? in terms of ukraine, the debate has been, can we take them in if part of ukraine is still under russian occupation? the question of west germany in the 1950's, relatively similar. this is unique. it's important reminder for nato, the accession process matters and what kind of message it sends to countries aspiring to be members. populism -- so many headlines were talking about finland and sweden, why did it take so long? at the end of the day, democracy is messy but produces results. we were able to bring 31 allies

for sweden and 30 allies in finland to agree on an acceptance of membership for both countries. that's not a small feat. it takes a lot of effort in this country to get people to agree on that. populism comes and goes and ebbs and flows. it will always be here, left or right. we should not misinterpret the debate and lead up into the accession of a member and assume it indicates a lack of ally unity. we are now in alliance, a very strong one of 32, which has been able to deliver on everything set forth. >> you have a background in congressional affairs. donald trump, speaking of the

far right populism side, has threatened to withdraw the u.s. from nato and has even gone so far to say "putin can do whatever the hell they want against nato members." how concerned should members be about a second trump presidency and what steps can they take to prepare for one? >> it's in the realm of the possible. we like to tell our european friends to focus on the here and now and who is currently in office. i am a lawyer by training. i do believe we have to focus on the present. the u.s. is still in the alliance. we are very much committed to our allies, to article five of the washington treaty. i hesitate when people get spun

up about a future trump residency -- presidency. we still have the rest of the year to do great things together. we will cross that bridge when we get to it. i am not going to speculate on the poles. we are far out from november in the u.s. i like to rain people in a little about those concerns because as we know, there are other great members that hopefully will take the lead. i've recently written on the baltics, they've been truly wonderful demonstrating their commitment to ukraine and hopefully will continue to take that leadership position in the alliance should the u.s. fall behind. i think we are jumping the gun a little when we start worrying about trump. we need to focus on the now.

>> it's important to recognize the possibility is real. i agree with krista on being careful. what have we seen since russia invaded ukraine the second time? increase in defense spending. we are seeing changes. we are seeing a shift in the alliance. that is something to cheer. that is what we will be cheering about at the summit. 18-32 members, probably up to 21 members meeting that 2% goal, which should be the floor, and in no means does meeting a number mean europe is secure. not at all. changes are being made. things are being done.

a little more can be done to make sure it's in an integrated way to make sure the deterrent effect is there, making sure our capabilities are filling those gaps. more can be done but more is being done. that is something we shouldn't lose sight on. defense spending will continue to go up. we are still in peacetime. when is the best time to build resilience? now. >> we tend to focus on the outcome of the elections. it's important to go back -- we've seen a positive movement in europe and i thought europe is willing to do more and invest in its own capabilities. that's a trend that needs to continue. that will more depend on the european elections. we have a couple big ones coming up. the europeans, including myself,

need to come to terms with the fact this is something we need to do not because there is a potential of someone coming into the office in the u.s. but it is our security at stake and making sure we can defend ourselves and provide a credible deterrent without having to knock on washington's doors. that's an important factor. there are important movements within nato. the announcement of the $100 billion potential fund secretary-general was mentioning a couple days ago as a program of military aid to ukraine. great example of these longer-term commitments the alliance should serve as a breeding ground for. it should bring countries together and coordinate efforts to make sure we are not thinking about the next four years. when we were thinking about the

previous holders of office in the u.s. -- how do we get through these four years? we need to start thinking strategically. strategy matters. end of the day, long-term strategy is something europe is lacking. something hopefully this war will wake up europe and bring it to its position. >> european security, the threat today. late last month, vladimir putin warned nato f-16 fighter jets would be considered a legitimate target, even on third country airfields, which could include nordic and baltic nations. what is the risk of one country being a spoiler if nato needs to respond to an article five threat? >> i can go.

there is always a risk. end of the day, this is why we have summits, in continuous coordination. so many complex meetings nato has every day to get everyone on the same page, that indicate the willingness of the alliance to be unified in response to potential threats. frankly, so far we've seen very little that that will change. even those countries that have been harder to deal with when it comes to certain issues, without naming anyone in particular, have expressed strong support for article five and have shown very little difference, willingness to depart from that. they are still active contributors to nato. as long as we remain focused on

maintaining that strong front, that's a challenge that will continue beyond russia today. we need to think about what russia will look like in the next 30 years. how, once hopefully the war in ukraine is wrapped up in well behind us and we are talking about rebuilding ukraine, then we will have a different russia. nato needs to think about what do we do with article five in those cases when we are talking about more uncertain means, in which different actors are trying to interfere in our security? >> we cannot rule out the possibility putin will try something against a nato ally. his remarks, he says he would be foolish for attacking a nato ally, given how many countries are in the alliance, but then the next day he is saying, he is

not ruling out strikes on nato bases training ukrainian soldiers. it's worth looking ahead to the next couple years. right now putin is not in a position to open another front with nato allies. who's to say where we will be in five years once russia has have a chance to reconstitute military capabilities? who's to say where putin will be then in terms of internal power dynamics and whether this will be something he needs to act on to remain a legitimate ruler of his country? article five being ironclad, this is where the former president remarks are dangerous. calling into doubt the legitimacy of article five and whether there would be a united response. that is a dangerous thing to put out in the world. >> could there be an end to nato in our lifetime? the next 75 years?

>> this is where krista's initial remarks on maintaining nato's relevance really are key. messaging problem is not in europe. europe is close. all europeans see the threats the russians pose. in america, the average joe in ohio, i don't know that can be said. does the average person in america understand that the russia threat is not just a threat to europe, it's a global threat, to global stability, democracy and more? that messaging in the u.s. around the summit, the summit is a perfect time for us to ramp up our strategies. tying in why the average person should care, as a result of the

cold war, i think the sentiment is still there. people still see russia as an adversary in ways. i don't want to close the door to russian civil society. not everyone agrees with putin. that's important. maintaining relevance and making the average person in america understand why we spend so much on defense, that is key. >> to slightly disagree, i don't think the pertinence of war, sort of, the support for the continuance sacrifices europe has made, across europe, the baltics are great example of a part of europe that has felt russian imperialism. there is some degree of, there always will be solidarity regardless of how difficult it is.

as the war drags on, it's a question of, how do we maintain momentum? in my opinion, nato has proven itself to be super adaptable to every challenge starting from, their free look at the 9/11, the only time article five was invoked and the unity the alliance had then, the french withdrawal from some of the nato structures, that nato survived and is now stronger, which very few expected, the french are now more in. what nato demonstrated and what makes me feel confident there is a safe future for nato is the degree of adaptability and continued interest in making sure the alliance thrives. at the end of the day, it's not easy but it requires a good secretary-general who is able to

bring the allies together. it requires good u.s. leadership and perspective but also increasingly european ownership of a lot of issues and challenges ahead. that's a combination but when you ask this crowd whether nato will survive, you will rarely get a no from a bunch of nato nerds. >> i don't think we are in disagreement. when i think about whether there is a splinter in nato, i think about a withdraw in u.s. leadership. maintaining european solidarity as a whole will be there but whether or not the u.s. is, is a different problem. that's the problem we are facing here. that's where i went with the messaging part. end of the day, nato is only as strong as all 32 allies together.

a big part of that is the u.s. role. there are credible capability gaps the europeans have that are filled by the u.s. nato will be weakened if the u.s. is not in it. >> i think nato would survive without the u.s. it would be a shell of itself but it would continue to serve an important role in bringing together countries in europe to have debates about deterrence. there is a generational component to this. we have to look to college students in the u.s. and europe, seeing war in ukraine, conflict in israel. this is shaping their world. we need to continue to make the case for why nato is relevant for the security of the one million people that live in the 32 nato allies and the wider world itself.

none of the challenges we face we can do alone. we need something like nato. if we didn't have it, we would be forced to reinvent it 50 years from now. >> we have a couple more minutes before return to the audience. -- before we turn to the audience. what is a step nato members and without allies should take to address the next generation's concerns in july? how do we pull in the next generation into the conversation of today? >> it gets back to my first comment. as we mentioned today, our generation grew up in a peaceful time for the most part. in the last two years, we've

seen the war in ukraine and now hamas-israel. as a result, there's a gap, pay generation that has forgotten what it's like. as an immigrant, i know that story. my grandparents fled. give me the motivation to get up every day and work on these things, security issues. i don't blame that generation that doesn't know what that is like. they don't feel urgency. they don't know why we need to spend so much on defense. for the most part they have lived through peaceful times. the war in ukraine and complex around the world seem so far away. they are oceans away. we don't feel that tangible pull on us each day. i am always concerned about how we can educate this next generation of leaders about why

it matters and why we should invest in military and encourage people to go into the armed services. the numbers are down in the u.s. how do we reinvigorate people to be interested in these issues because we are a group of nato nerds today, but there is a generation of people who are not. how can we integrate them? >> couldn't agree more with you. the curious mix of people here on stage. for me, i grew up in croatia. i was a postwar baby, hearing stories about the role nato played in the balkans. i know how things were before we had peace and stability. once you have that much closer to home, it's easier to understand why nato is important.

trans xina security initiative that -- trans atlantic security initiative has been talking to students to emphasize, why are we backing this alliance? yes, a lot of you don't remember a world before stability, before america could have been threatened or our allies could have been attacked at any moment but we are increasingly moving in a complex world. that could be a likelihood. we need to be ready. we need the mechanism to cooperate and work together. we have a good one in nato. to some extent, i always say encouraging people, nato has done this good historically, churchill did his speeches across the midwest, a lot of euro leaders are doing this today and it's important to continue that and engage across

the u.s. and outside the east and west coast but also going to the european countryside, talk to the people and make sure the importance of nato is felt. that is something that has been generationally taken for granted now. >> to add to the brilliant points, nato should be prepared to answer the question to the next generation -- how are you keeping us safe? no one understands regional plans unless you are in the nato nerd community. relevance is important. thinking about, how to keep up with that relevance? making people understand this is why we do what we do. our generation has grown up in peacetime.

none of us really know what it is like to be afraid to go to bed at night because there might be a bomb dropped on us. keeping that will be important. i think nato is taking efforts to do that. i've heard talks at several u.s. mayors will be at the summit. incredible step. you need more people outside the beltway understanding what is happening. the nato youth summit will take place, i heard in florida. that's an important step to keeping engagement up. we are doing what we can. the messaging component is what will be crucial. >> fully agreed. that's critical. all eyes will be on washington this july. how the alliance comes together is going to play out especially with ukraine. the future of ukraine is the future of europe and nato.

whether the alliance can transition ukraine into the full structure, that will determine so much about how the next generation and people around the world see the alliance. >> thank you so much. i want to turn to the audience for in person participants, if you have a question, please come up to the mic. there are a couple questions online as well. i will start with one of these. i will bring it up so my poor eyesight can see it. outside the general defense, the future will bring emerging challenges in the hybrid and space domains as well as the effects of climate change. how can the alliance meet these coming challenges in the future without sacrificing defense and deterrence strategies now? >> line-up -- this is back to my

point. there is so much on nato's plate. the war in ukraine. everyone thought hybrid warfare would be the name, the main type used. it went back to conventional. now we are seeing that focus of never losing sight of conventional warfare. nato is tackling these problems. nato act in norfolk, virginia, allied command transformation looks at these problems. our cyber and hybrid space, these are challenges but i think we are living up to taking the problem seriously and finding solutions and making sure we are evolving in a way that does not inhibit innovation. >> you have a background in cybersecurity. your generous.

>> putting on my lawyer hat, this is something i researched in law school. low threshold cyber attacks. should call them operations. it's challenging. they don't go to the level of international conflict. it's like the i am not touching you game russia likes to play. we've seen that in estonia. in the 2000s, the baltics experienced this regularly. they have become experts. they are not worried about these issues anymore. these issues continue to persist. russian bots continue to multiply and find new ways to perpetrate into our society. that relates to bigger issues of

disinformation. as we mentioned, many elections coming up around the world this year. we have to be vigilant making sure info and news we are consuming is legitimate and accurate. unfortunately, almost weekly now you see, take back, so sorry, we were duped by this ourselves. we have to be concerned about that and this is a challenge that is not going away for nato. the centers of excellence have been great examples of this, focusing on the issues of cyber. we are all living in a more interconnected, online world so this is not going away. >> fundamentally, the causes of war will not change. there will always be economic disparity, great power competition, ideological differences. when it comes to the means of

waging war, that will change and is changing, even in ukraine. from hybrid warfare or use of emerging tech tools requires new concepts and operations from our end but will be important, not just for nato to be the breeding ground for the thinking behind it or to be the place -- guiana is a great initiative. so many other centers of excellence nato supported but it is the mastery of specific tech and the ability to use them is what nato will have to do. we talk about deep tech. ai. it's not just the fact we need to be sure to know how to respond in order to prevent further escalation but we also need to secure ourselves. as of now, it doesn't look like

we have the full capability to secure ourselves from emerging threats. we are still working on it. the announcement from the house intelligence committee, the capabilities of russian space nuclear, that will be a domain where we need to start thinking about it now. what are the ways in which we can be on the cutting edge instead of our enemies? >> a question over here? >> hi, i have the honor of leading the transatlantic board here. i know all your bosses. [laughter] you are the next generation of policymakers. my team gets to hear me pontificate all day long on nato. when you hear established nato

nerds talk about the alliance, policy issues, what are we missing? when you hear me talking, when do you want to yell, but chris, this is old thinking. you are getting it wrong. what are we missing? >> tough question. i don't want to get into too much trouble with my boss, who may be watching. [laughter] one of the things are generation ads is we come from the post-cold war era. a lot of our thinking is not where europe was for that long stretch from the end of the second world war to the cold war. we tend to view europe as more malleable, influx. some of that translates to the nato level where we are open to

new frameworks of nations. the joint expeditionary force led by the u.k. is interesting, how coalitions of the willing can emerge within nato and how that can be encouraged to respond to all threats. >> love this question. my boss will be happy if he is watching. my answer is more nato-eu cooperation. jason mentioned this recently. luka mentioned madeleine albright. the three d's approach was the status quo for a long time. recently there have been shifts. they've been happening at the european level for longer but we are seeing the shifts in american rhetoric. i've heard from senior u.s. defense officials that they are

supportive of a european defense industrial base. that that is in our interest. we should be encouraging the europeans. that's a tangible way for them to do more. getting away from the status quo thinking nato is nato and nato cannot have the eu's help, that change will be special. i hope it takes throughout this generation. it's been a long time coming. >> agree but for me, one particular aspect of this when it comes to nexgen leaders is a reminder to the generations that came before us about the fact that we take peace for granted. in order to make sure nato remains relevant and strong requires engaging with a new generation of people in

different ways. which means nato will need to be more present on the ground, more political and visible in ways it hasn't been so far. transparency. those are the three requirements in my head when i listen to these debates. that's great. most of the people who have seen foreign policy over the last couple decades, all of us agree on these things. when it comes to ensuring our generation and our peers remain interested in this area and supportive will require more effort and strategic thinking about population engagement, specifically the next generation. >> we have to encourage other young leaders. we all know we all benefit when

we think of new creative ideas with more diverse audiences. i am the sole lawyer at my think tank. let's bring more people like me that think differently, that are super excited about language. you have to encourage other young people. it's wonderful we have this panel today but we have to make sure we are encouraging folks around the world, within nato, encouraging people to go into the armed forces, to go study these issues. we have to keep diversifying and involving different folks and not just policy wonks focused on these topics because we will come up with more creative solutions. >> think about things that are

important to us, that drive us to military service. it's not the heart security issues always. it's more the challenges our generation will face. climate, tech. when you see an article written about nato, it is something that will drive a lot of people to join the armed forces and reinvigorate that drive that existed at the end of the cold war. >> my point will pick up on what luka shared. thank you. we are celebrating nato at 75 today. we are looking at 75 years in the future.

in terms of nato's relevance, the effects of climate change. it will affect the future of war fighting. it already is in the north. nato last year established a climate change security center of excellence in canada. your thoughts on nato's role in addressing climate change? integrating a climate lens into war fighting abilities? thanks. >> briefly, i don't work on this in particular, i'm not as in the weeds, but the secretary-general highlighting climate change does impact nato is a great step. he's a public figure. he's drawn attention to the issue. establishing the center is another great step, bringing together the best possible people to work. my quick take.

>> i will pull on my eu thread. the eu has an and norma's economic -- has an enormous economic toolkit nato does not possess. e.u. could help nato discovering new ways to reduce climate change dependencies done by nato. it adds a new lens to how we are spending money on equipment. there are roles for other partnerships here. >> the secretary has an important role here selling this as the core of nato's thinking. when it comes to industry, they feel the effects on their own production abilities, to ship

things, to get resources they need. we haven't touched on the role of the private sector. an important role in bringing it to each allied member. nato is doing a good job. >> i think we will see a war in our lifetime fighting over water. we need to look to the places where this is already occurring. nato might need to beef up their climate folks in brussels and make sure we are plugged in. water is life. i think within our lifetime we will see conflicts over water. as a result, nato can start

preparing now. we know where those areas are. that's my concern. >> second thought. csis is undertaking a massive project looking at this. water is one of the most scarce things in our lifetime. we will see real changes because of it. the role for nato is to prove we can evolve and adapt and think of new ways to tackle these problems outside the status quo thinking. >> we have time for one more question. i want to end on a positive note. if you were to meet the secretary-general, what would you want to say? >> i will start. [laughter] i did get to meet him at the youth summit in brussels.

i would say thank you. he's extended his tenure multiple times. a big hug. thank him for that. we are all better, stronger together thanks to his leadership. i'm sure he did not know what he was stepping into, has a latvian and american, truly grateful for everything he's done. there have been some tough nights for him. months or years. big thank you. >> make sure to reinforce whoever comes after you, that they remain as determined to ensure allied unity and being a mediator between allies when needed. that is what the current secretary-general has done in a

unique and effective way. wishing him a good and well-deserved retirement. >> of course i would say thank you for your service. i would also highlight it's not just him. it takes a village. everyone at nato hq, the different joint force command and u.s., it takes all of us. it's not one person leading the pack. on the face of it, it is. it takes a group effort. it is worth applauding how far we have come. >> to echo my colleagues, i would thank the secretary-general. he just wants to go back to the norwegian forest and be happy and free. i hope he will take a long vacation afterwards. looking ahead to the next

secretary-general, he or she will have a tremendous amount of pressure and work ahead of them to keep the alliance unified. that's the theme we all picked up on. alliance unity is key moving forward. to whoever takes on this job next, good luck to them. >> that's all the time we have today. thank you again. i want to thank everyone who asked questions and the atlantic council for hosting. thank you for being here. [applause] ♪

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]