♪♪ >> hello everyone, our final panel charting a path for the community after washington. my name is felicia, the foreign affairs correspondent. the world largest is much to celebrate, this milestone marks 35 years and collective defense and the founders have turned into 30 members with military threats and delivered. barry looking at an important summit in washington and this will form the backtracks of the summit but while there is much, there is a threat security and

defense. i am here with an all-star panel today. i will start on the end. we have james montgomery had of the embassy, a job he's held since july of 22. ... his priestly director and senior fellow at brookings and is written several books including aftershocks, pandemic politics and end of the old international order. next with ambassador yuri kim, currently the principal deputy assistant secretary of state for europe and eurasian affairs. she is a career diplomat who is worked on many key foreign policy -- foreign policy nasa security challenges and was also

ambassador to republic of albania from 2020-2023. i got to see a much of a celebrity a much of a celebrity she is a bear. and then last and certainly not least we have mr. axel dittmann, deputy chief of mission and chargé d'affaires the german embassy and okay, let's get started. just to kind of two things up and looking back to 2023 and vilnius and thinking about where we will go this summer, what is your assessment of how, and whoever wants to jump in verse go ahead, what is your assessment of how the implementation of nato's plan from villas are going? what you think things stand about 100 days out from the summit? >> start with you at the end. >> sure. i mean, i think let's remember as you do said nato has been around for several years now. that's a significant milestone. i about a billion people across the north atlantic area who are

secured by this incredible lines. it's twisted the test of time and emerged the most extraordinary complex europe as it ever seen. i think nato is in a good place. i think vilnius certainly tested us because vilnius was fundamentally about ukraine and the challenge russia's invasion of ukraine has created for us as an alliance. something fundamentally ukraine will strengthen the alliance. i think putin want less nato and you get more nato. he's got a rejuvenated nato and to make new members and longer nato order. something fundamentally nato is in a better place but we need to adapt and can you do to think about how we face new threats and challenges. i think the ukraine where has shown the defense industrial complex is still critical and we need to continue to invest in that. uk has announced they will move

to 2.5% spending on our military defense budget by 2030. that is part of because we need to reinvest in our defense industry complex. we've got to think about the future of conflict. ukraine and the russians are constantly innovating a front lines. we need to learn from those lessons, think about cyber, think about on data comes together and most capable tech countries. think about cyber policies under cyber strategies and heavy can contest in that space. fundamentally we need to think about what conflict will look like in ten, 20 years time. as we think about the successes we can accelerate in washington we also need to look to future what we can see. >> tom, what do you think will feature at the top of the agenda for the summit, especially course for the u.s. and the president? >> yeah, i very much agree with james and what a think at the 75 year mark i think the last to celebrate the last sort of take

note of in terms of the critical role nato has played in the securing of europe and for the many decades. anything we look forward, i know that the topic of this how as well i think the summit, ukraine will be at key part of that and finding unpacking what is the bridge to nato at the membership for ukraine, what does it mean, how can we help ukraine strengthen its own defense and be able to deter future attack i think that's a key development but it agree with the james that there's a broader set of challenges there about the changing nature of conflict that nato's role in the world, that our sort of efforts to shape and reshape the international order so it it aligns with our values and interests. this summit some sort ofe

heels of what we're seeing other totalitarian countries increasing their cooperation with each other in a range of different areas. i think what we're seeing that nato but was also alliances and partnerships more general is that our allies and partners are deepening cooperation with us in very significant ways, both to address immediate challenges but also to build that capacity sort of for the future. >> ambassador kim, to you, in terms of how the priorities will stack up, what areas of divergence to anticipate and what areas do you think will be easier to solve? [inaudible] >> look, , the fact of the mattr is that nato is bigger, stronger that it is been at any time in history.

[inaudible] and as we head towards the summit in washington this summer, we are looking at celebrating how far we've come and what -- [inaudible] look at the threats we face now. and then we are projecting -- [inaudible] celebrating 75 but also position ourselves to make sure -- [inaudible] that means we have to -- already emerging threats. [inaudible] hybrid, cybercom all those other threats that are on the cusp coming towards us. want to make sure that we are preparing for membership when that moment comes. the president is very clear -- [inaudible] will be part of our alliance.

the third part is making sure that all of our allies are able to fulfill the commitment that we make to each other. and that includes burden sharing. so ten years ago in, when we made the commitment to each other on 2%, we were at a point where only three of the allies were meeting. ten years on, 20 of our allies, or two-thirds. we all agreed that 2% -- [inaudible] soberly at a very robust increase and modernization of our capability. and we're looking at an alliance the really is increasingly at the core global -- [inaudible] >> mr. dittmann, what do you see as germany's priorities heading into the summit? >> thanks very much.

it's very important -- [inaudible] and so we have to focus on -- [inaudible] [inaudible] and i think there's number of other things also, look at the

capability to react in this securities environment -- [inaudible] deterrent -- [inaudible] there's a number of very concrete things we have -- [inaudible] i think that's a very important thing. [inaudible] very concretely. [inaudible] >> i don't know how many of you watching for in the room were at the vilnius summit last year, but the ukraine deliverable

definitely proved to be a bit contentious and hermetic at the end, which i think it's sometimes rare for nato summits. so with that in mind, do you anticipate any drama on the ukraine deliverable? or what you see as realistic deliverable, and how can you get there? i will conjure all of you are lining up to answer this question, but maybe we'll start with ambassador kim or tom. >> i'm happy to jump in. and, i think it's a look at what happened last year, i think it was in a pretty constructive plastic leaf look at the disagreements, i think part of it was on the type of force that sort of signify commitment anything on when in people said we have signified commitments to join nato, very clear and others that wanted to have for malaysia

vorster elicited that. so was a bit of a difference than a substantive difference. i think what we're focused on this year is very much that concretely, what concretely can we do to strengthen ukraine's capacity and defense and also to build up the bridge to nato. that has several components to it. one element is sort nato's role is working with uk number working on that with allies and with ukraine sort of at the moment to build that out. that would be one piece. i think a second piece is a bilateral to get agreement that is, that were working on with him now, which started actually in vilnius with the joint declaration. but that is about making sure we're trying to build at their capacity to defend themselves and to deter a a future attaco build that force of the future in ukraine. that is not any think there's

some confusion on this, last year in the gender they come is not incompatible with nato membership but actually strengthens it because when ukraine joined nato in the future, if it has a very strong military that's capable of deterring a russian attack, on its own merits, that will, you know, that will be strengthened and enhanced by sort of the island can of it as well. so things may be as when together. the final piece i think is that support for ukraine's defense industrial base, helping them to do the type of things they need to do as you i think mentioned earlier to be making those innovations, you know, on the battlefield to help them defeat russian forces in ukraine. but yuri may have additional things to have i think that's how we sort of see that.

>> although that -- the term drama. it's actually come to me it's not drama. it's actually the importance of the moment. and i think allies a much of the rest of the world are very alive and alert to the threat that rush is posing. we had one of the five roman members of the u.n. security council having invaded a neighbor, invaded a neighbor, and is flouting the most basic rules that have governed international relations and that of undergirded peace and security for much of the world for the last 80 years since the end of world war ii. it's a big deal. and if we were having boring talking points read out to each other at a summit or even any forum like this, that would be cause for worry.

so the passion and the commitment with which people are staking a position as we head towards washington, i think that's an issue at all. i think that's a healthy, important -- but what i said is very clear to me as i work these issues is that we are bigger, stronger and more united than ever before. >> for either of our dcm onstage come what may which to think on ukraine is realistic at this point? item who wants to jump in first. >> you know, i think tom captured the spirit of the intent with this concept of the bridge into nato for ukraine. the uk is absolutely convinced that ukraine's place is in the of the want to see accelerating trajectory on that. but if it yeary is absolutely right that fundamentally we need to help ukraine fight this war right now. that actually has to be the focus.

we need native to get behind ukraine and tuppence start pushing that line. so that is the focus. i agree there has to be passion in this debate. what we want is people can with ideas and come with a challenge and actually testing the proposition so we get this straight. we've got to get it right. and so in some ways trauma is not a bad think i'm not sure it was as traumatic maybe as that but the key thing is that were having a conversation and the conversation is lively and helps us arrive at the right point. one thing i will say is this is an important landmark summit. it's happening in washington, and i think the incredible focus the united states is bringing host and his partner to bring to discussion brings the conference we will get to the right place. >> what do you think is realistic, or what does germany want to see?

[inaudible] the thing -- [inaudible] if it's not working -- [inaudible] data, ukraine. -- nato, ukraine. [inaudible] so i think these are important issues that we will be working on stronger roles for nato in coordinating our militaries. and at the same time it's so important that we welcome very practical things to help ukraine and to make sure that russia loses. there's a number of things to

which, things in place like, for example, air defense. we have just stationed a third patriot the system in ukraine. other things production and delivery of munitions. i think we've taken some steps here also in building new factories doing that. but, of course, it is so important of the decision taken last week of the supplemental to fill in the gaps and to deliver what is needed. >> ambassador kim, just to follow up on a threat from dcm dittmann. i know with the meeting this proposal use mentioned about nato taking a greater role in court needing assistance came up. my reporting suggested may be stoltenberg is a more enthusiastic about it than the

u.s. might be. i wonder where things stand on this idea, what you all at the state department think about the notion of nato playing him are organizing role, especially because now the u.s. has been able to pass the supplemental which was i think in doubt when it was first brought up. >> so a couple of things. in our 2022 strategic concept, we identified russian as the biggest threat against euro-atlantic peace and secretive. security. so that's never one. number two, the reality is that almost every nato ally is providing physical support. we want to make sure that as we contend with the threat posed by russia and as we support ukraine's effort to win the war that was imposed on them, that we do so in an organized and

coordinated fashion so that we are frankly making the best use of taxpayer dollars and we're providing ukraine with the support that it needs on a timeline and any fashion that makes the most sense on the battlefield. >> and thomas, you mentioned the bilateral agreements that were announced last year. i think the uk has completed yours. you with the first ones i believe. how would you grade the process of getting those agreements up and running? and where would you like a degree in 100 days time? >> yeah, i think it's going very well. i don't know what, you know, obviously biased in terms of what grade. but it think the process has gone well. i think if you look back to

where it started, you know, i think prior to film his there was maybe a bit of a sense that the question role was behind it. there either a member or sort of not a member. i think what we're trying to do was think about ways in which we could unpack that a little bit and make sure that as ukraine progressed to being a member which is comforted because in the midst of major war right now, that we can take steps that would sort of enhance their defense and security in the here and now and then extra years. so whenever that moment rose when it did join that there would be in in a strong posi. i don't think that was necessarily sort of obvious to everyone, including to them or to ourselves at the time. i think it was a sense maybe doesn't take away from nato? is that something different?

in the run-up to vilnius we agreed is this is sort of an important part. those the glaciations, you kaser demonstrates -- negotiations -- quickly where sort of wound away on arsenic think as it unfolds between now and the next -- [inaudible] i think were still working on exactly when and how to finalize to announce it. but it think there increasingly seen that as an important and key component of ukraine's security, but also of its membership in nato. >> and okay, now this is one for our british and german friends on the panel. we will start with you. shortly i think right after the nato summit the would be the republican convention.

trump, the republican candidate, has pretty consistently suggested he could drag america away from nato and want to see if your of course do more regardless in the alliance. what message do you think or would you like to have trump and not just trump of members of his party who are skeptical about u.s. present in nato, what do you hope will be on display at the summit as that sentiment is going in the u.s.? >> i think important signature, i would say that regardless of the elections coming up, the strength of the alliance, the strength of the transatlantic alliance completely crucial for the security in europe.

something which, crucially for the interest of the united states. and practically, i hope and a believe, that what will come out of the sum is only a very clear support, practical support, strategic support to ukraine. but there's also the question of europe stepping up its commitment here, and the burden sharing, there's not just a slogan, a word where europe is not delivering but europe really is taking this responsibility serious and doing this with very concrete money and measures. yuri kim i think mentioned 20 now of nato fulfilling the 2%

goal. and clear commitment offer by committee leadership that this will be done and a sustainable manner. i think the other thing which should come out and i guess will come out is that this is not just also about money. it is not very concrete -- which is going on. we are shoring up this. together, we are looking at very concrete armament production to really help deterrence and defense capability. so i think out of the summit will come the necessity of the alliance, also about very concrete contributions in particular also by your. >> anything to add?

>> i will just say that the united states is being, has led nato throughout it's time and has provided leadership throughout it's time. and president trump has already been president of the united states and the united states remained committed to nato rights to that trade back. and again provided leadership right to that. back. i think he rightly drove nato to do more on spending. ambassador kim talked about the fact that we have moved from 2014 with 3% of members spending 2% up to maybe two-thirds of members now, i think in tunica bruschetta making sure that 2% is of the floor. as the said uk is now committed to 2.5 by 2030. i think that is important. i also noticed that just before the supplemental passed last week president trump asked for

your to do more in ukraine. well, we are doing more in ukraine and will continue to do more in ukraine. but he also said that we need a secure and strong ukraine. i think we also agree with that as well. so i think we don't the united states will continue to be the essential partner for europe, whatever happens. >> can ask before move on to dig a bit deeper. i wonder how come the supplement of course has been very large over of all these conversations i'm sure. i wonder what you are hearing from the other members of nato about this sentiment as you are in the run-up to the summit? >> yeah, i can start now. i think the first point just to reinforce something ambassador kim said earlier on on the meta burden sharing we're seeing. a lot of it is often focus on the 2% number because of the

historical importance of that and i think that's critically important. what i think you can also look at it in dollar numbers, to pick if you look at the first, the three years of this administration, not our allies and partners in nato have increased their annual spending and defense over that time by about $78 billion a year. if you look at the four years previous to that, the increased between the start of the administration and the administration was probably $70 billion. and previous to that in the obama administration and prior we were sort of in a time of war cuts jump up until 2014 when is sort to increase again. i think you can make a strong case about what we are seeing over the last three years is actually a historic sort of increase in allied activity on their defensive security, take a

in europe but also more generally. we are seeing european allies become quite interest in what's happening in the pacific, and indo-pacific become quite interesting was happening in ukraine and in europe because they see our security as and are dependent and linked so i think there is, we've seen real historic achievements i think on the burden sharing site. the other point which is make, in answer to question about our people nervous i what do you think, i'm not going to get an obviously to the election piece of this body would say i have seen reports that say we try to trump prove this or things like that. that is not what we're doing at all. we're trying to take steps at nato in relationship to ukraine that make sense regardless of who is president. there are things we think are sensible and right for u.s. interests, regardless of who is

sort of an office, which which is what i think we should be doing. it's not about trying to think through different scenarios and how to -- sort of going forward, but these are steps i think that make, that enhance u.s. interests, make transatlantic security stronger and make ukraine stronger as it fights for its existence and for its sovereignty. >> i will ask you a different question, abbasid again, which is we avenue, are you all spoke a lot about 2% as the floor, not a ceiling. i wonder from u.s. perspective beyond any more money on defense what type of plan capacities or capability investments do you think or does he use think that european allies need to kick up to try to increase and more a complete distributed burden sharing in the light? >> i want to underscore again that allies together are doing much more than we've ever done

in quite some time, and what putin has succeeded phenomenally at doing is concentrating the mind. and reinvigorating the recently nato -- the first place. abby looked to the future the next 75 years, we are going to need to look very carefully at the capabilities we need. and allies are very closely engaged in in the discussion. you will see that reflected in some of the documents that come out during the summit in washington. but beyond that we all had a a recognition that we also need to reinvigorate our defense the database. what we're seeing now is russia with the assistance of chinese company is reinvigorating at a pace and scale that we haven't seen since the collapse of the soviet union. we have to at least keep pace

with that, at least. i think most of us agree that we have to beat that. so whether it's looking at what we need to do in the united states to increase the pace with which we produce their ou, for example, or we look at the production of f-35s f-16s. every country is going be to look at that and we as i slept come together on an agreed plan. >> i think you mentioned germany's commitment to defense spending earlier this year. tell us a bit more about what this means for the lights going forward and what you hope to see from a other countries as their making commitments. [inaudible] >> i mean what signal do you think german has pledged to spend more? >> i think for us it's --

[inaudible] speech three to four days after renewed russian invasion of ukraine and i think this is really a strategic shift to us and committed 100 billion euro for defense. i think we're putting that absolutely to use. i love the procurement decisions which are not being implemented. a lot of them also in close cooperation and benefiting u.s. producers. the f-35s, other aircraft. is a very substantial. but i would like, this of course not like the one time thing. it's as if it before we will sustain. i would like to pick up one

thing which yuri just mentioned here, that is the defense industrial base, cuba also to produce equipment, to produce ammunition that we need is also a proposal now within the european union. the commission's made reported to a ramp up the production, this is something we're looking at. so this is something where we -- lots to do within the eu, with aware of it, to really, speaking about joint procurement, operability, joint research developer, joint production, you name it. i think that would of thought of things we have on the table and is also some important steps going on. this is not a theoretical discussion. i can say for france and

germany, this is for 155 million, just started construction but also their defense. we build a factory to produce -- [inaudible] this is really i think things which are going on. nato remains the backdrop for our security. we will see, i spoke more about the european union of course break close cooperation with uk make clear and we could see when -- also announced joint production of artillery system. so i think this is unique, shows that it's not, not just a number. it would also not very concrete

capabilities and coordinated to show strength of nato. >> just digging into some of the commitments of the defense industry base that were made at vilnius last year. nato leaders agreed on the defense production action plan, aiming to create a sustainable defense industry as all of you have discussed. what do you think is required for the up limitation of this to be successful? and how can allies and particularly industry partners step up to make this a reality? >> sought think one of the things we need to do is, show long-term spending commitments so that the private sector, the industry can with confidence make investments they need to be able to deliver what we need. refer to some of the steps the uk, the german partners have taken to show that commitment, to signal their long-term spending will be there for that.

and i think that needs to happen in the artillery space, but we also have to focus on the cyberspace as well. i think ukraine has really shown that you need real rigorous cooperation with the private sector to think about your cyber vulnerabilities and how you defend against attack and how you have the capability to inflict damage if you are attacked in turn pics i think working with the private sector, with the big tech capable countries across nato to work at how we make these partnerships work. and then finally learning from ukraine. both sides innovating in extraordinary ways on the front lines in the molko particularly in terms of drone warfare, use of ai, terms of target acquisition. making sure we stay on the cutting edge of that nature our technology is future produced and pray for future complex. >> tom or here, what if you have any thoughts about what

deliverables in the database when i to see which are working towards? >> we are still working at the package for washington, but i can tell you that the defense industry base will be a part of this. >> no more details for the rest? wait and see. does anyone else want to add on the database? >> can i just did one thing? i think what we're seeing in ukraine it's quite interesting because with sort of two buckets on the defense the database. one is we're seeing companies and the protection system and how to crank out more sort of 155 or other things they need. and i think that's happening. it's incremental, painfully into middle because it's not a money issue. all sorts of things going to come included on the supply chain and other things, , enorms

amount of work on. i think that's one side of it and that's for us, for the trend come for allies and but also for ukraine. the other part which i think they are quite adept that is very entrepreneurial the -- the battlefront in designing specific response to particular problems that they encounter, sorted in real time. [inaudible] that is a think james was saying we can learn from that. i think that something we can help sort of facility. i think you're saying those two different sort of vectors of change come together, and we need to sort of recognize that and built on it and obviously we agreed to help them. >> and obviously ukraine has a lot of very immediate needs as

we've seen in the supplemental and the announcement uk has made and others and so on. how can the alliance balance this critical moment for ukraine with planning for its longer-term future? >> what i would say to that is russia has very clearly signaled the remain the great threat, immediate threat to nato. and in many ways russia has shown their hand in terms of the threat that they posed pics i think in the immediate term making sure we have the capability to deter further and to give ukraine what it needs to succeed and make sure that putin fails in ukraine, those are the two immediate issues. tom touched on the fact that we offer need to talk to our indo-pacific partners and we will do that again in washington. washington. i think as we've seen,

ambassador kim talked about russian help, sorry, chinese help to russian terms of their own rearmament process. it's disappointing to see that from chinese companies. i hope the chinese government will look very covert of this and do what they can to curb that activity and stop the activity. but i think we need to see the continuing of threats globally and work with our partners across the world to make sure we secure our future. >> just one more question for all of you before return to the audience and our viewers at home. home. so think of your questions now. picky up on this thread about china and indo-pacific. you know, i wonder if the chip you could wait and on how you think china, whether it's role helping brushy and the conflict in ukraine or how nato is think about china, how china will figure in this historic summit. maybe ambassador kim, , start wh you. >> there's an increasing

connection that's obvious to everybody that what happened in indo-pacific has direct bearing on security in the euro atlantic. you are going to see more and more of that discussion, about strategizing as we go forward. one of the ways in which we talk to the chinese about this issue and secretary blinken i'm sure discussed it with anybody else that he sought in beijing when he was there a few days ago, is that you can't, on the one hand, say that you want a stable, peaceful, productive relationship with the united states and with europe, on the one hand. and then on the other enable what we have clearly and very publicly identified as the greatest threat to our security. so you can have both of these happening at the same time. china has got to make some tough

decisions as well. and if their past decision-making is anything to judge by, we think overall they will decide to invest in the future, which is they need the european market. they need cooperation with the united states. and we would like the same. we don't have any interest in having a contentious relationship with china. we want to compete but we don't want a conflict. >> china will -- [inaudible] >> and what happens in the pacific has also impact on our security in europe. it's important to have a strategic discussion with asia-pacific partners, which is

going to happen together with the discussion of the eu, very important. and i agree that you cannot have like, you cannot separate the trade and security, treated as completely unrelated. chinese support for the russian war effort is very critical and problematic for european security. and it was raised by the chancery in his discussions when he was in beijing. so it's an important issue. >> okay. i think we will open up for questions. i had some on the ipad but if there's anyone in the room the once to ask one. i think -- please introduce yourself. >> my name is catarina. i have salute with school public

servant under the question to all panelists. so we know that putin believes in time is on his side and that he basically accounts very much on the political landscape change in 2025 to his advantage. and not only political but the military consequentially. so my question to all of you, what conclusion would you like him to drop out of the washington summit? thank you. >> i will just keep it very simple. nato is bigger, stronger, more united than ever before. and mr. putin has been wrong from the start. many of us in fact, have been wrong. when he went in with his full-scale invasion which, by the way, we warned about

publicly, and he lied and said he had no intention of doing that, he went in unfair the 24th, 2022, with the expectation that kyiv would fall within days. didn't happen. what the plaintiff and able to achieve over the last two years, the on the simple act of endurance, is to push back the black sea fleet which i bet you none of us would ever have predicted. they had kept odessa open. they have kept this is going. and they have damaged the russian army in ways we could not have imagined. so i would say that mr. putin might want to be a little more modest in his predictions about what could happen. and i think we also should take some lessons from what we have witnessed over the last two years. [inaudible] -- putin will fail but nato is

resolute and united in its support of ukraine and will stand with ukraine. until putin is defeated. and he needs to start thinking about a plan b. >> trudy rubin from "the philadelphia inquirer." there are several weeks before they need a conference, and what happens on the ground in ukraine between now and then will be critical. so i'm wondering, even the domestic concerns both in the united states and in europe about air defenses, i want to ask everyone, do you think that the seven additional systems that the ukrainians say they need to defend their city will be found between -- germany has

led the way with a new one in addition to what they've already set. but everyone else seems to be having a lot of trouble in figure out how they can give more. and on the german side you have been in the forefront with your new system of patronage system on offer, but is there a chance that. [inaudible] will follow? >> on the last question i cannot really say anything beyond highest political authorities made the statement of that on the record, so that's why i have nothing to add on this one. but i can say that we are the second largest military contributor to ukraine.

largest in europe. we are absolutely determined to continue to support ukraine for as long as it takes. so that putin does not win, defeated. and i can say you are also trying to look at, as you pointed out, very immediate needs for ukraine. air defense is one. deliver system, working together with partner to try to get more to ukraine. >> idol, ambassador kim, tom, use scorning all this? >> yeah, i can start. trudy, good to see you. i think it's a great question. i think before you get to the their defense, i will just say what we been seen publicly over the last few weeks, of which is we are worried about ukraine's

situation. you know, the fact the supplemental took so long. thankfully, they came through and that's a great sort of achievement for everyone. it's absolutely critical to ukraine's success. but the problems that existed a few weeks ago will not be solved overnight. i mean it takes ss as we rushed the stuff the ukraine, it will take time for it to be absorbed, for it to be used, and for ukraine to strengthen its defense against these russian attacks. as we come up to nato summit, i think the overall message is one about unity, strength and support for ukraine. but, unfortunately, that could coexist alongside difficult days on a battlefield for ukraine that's under pressure. because it will take time to reverse that. i mean, i think steady progress

has been made towards that but that's the world that we are in. know know what i think is a e critical than on their ai. i think that something we and everyone on the stage has been warning about for some time. because again, as you know air defense, it's absolutely critical that we have the number of interceptors and greater in everything that allows it to be effective. so the systems are also maintained by the risk of not getting support to ukraine and not getting the supplement at all was that russia would end up being able to destroy those systems and king air security which is something it has not had in this conflict to date. thankfully. and so we're working sort of everyday come on everyone on this stage is to get as much sort of a error defense all te different components of that system over to ukraine as fast

as possible. i don't have anything sort of new to sort of announce in response to question except that i think it is, it's not are very top, one of the very top sort of priorities that we have. i think everybody understands the incredible importance of that aspect of ukraine's defens defense. >> i will take one from the ipad. there still time for you guys ask questions if you'd like. this one is not fun but i find interesting or if russia and china are learning the lessons from ukraine, one likely to do with the risks that come with attacks and the sultan first hybridoma. nato and allies and eastern flank expect russian aggression acutely and already crowded with the rate of hybrid attacked the estate address to address threats and hybrid domain of what might allies of what is due to increasing lights his ability to do with threats below the threshold? >> doing if you want to jump in? >> so i think this is definitely

the frontier and the area where we need to focus a lot of our efforts. i think you're right that particularly the states in the east of the new alliance have been grappling with cyber attacks from sources outside nato for some time now. and that sort of established quite strong capability in dealing with that. we need to continue to invest in that. in particular we need to continue to look at nato doctrine and the way that cyber features in the doctrine and we would think about the response to cyber. but i will say this, ukraine has led the way in showing how you respond to russian cyber aggression. and again it did because it had extrudate partnership from the private sector who were willing to really lean in and help ukraine. the way ukraine has moved its own tech capability into the cloud and learn to defend its there.

and also whether used cyber not just in terms of protecting and defending their domestic capability also enhancing their were fighting cube of those really, really impressive. >> i am going to take the moderators liberty and talk in one of my own that the toss the will of my own but there's a good atlantic council paper. sorry, the author's name escape the of the month for suggesting is right likely putin would launch a new offensive around the times of the summit. maybe we can start with one of the americans on the panel. but i but i wonder how you t this risk and what, if anything, you can do about it as you are making preparation? >> we are already seeing it, right? the russians have launched a major assault on ukraine's energy infrastructure. they're hitting it now. they are sort of, they counted on that gap between the into major funding and our ability to

push through with supplemental funding from the united states they've exploited that moment. we can expect the would be some of those effects becoming more starkly visible as we head into the winter. we don't fully see it now because we are at the spring and summer time weather, but it's going to get bad. i think we should be be prepared for that. in response to that and it anticipation of further attacks, this is where it goes back to know the question you asked about their defense to win looking and looking again, asking all allies and partners to take another look to see what we have in terms of interceptors, launchers, radars, anything else that can be repurposed, adjusted to fit the need, , the urgent need for air defense. and at the same time we have these capability coalitions, one of which is for the f-16.

that capability should be coming online soon. >> anything to add about the prospect of more major russian defense as the summit approaches? >> one thing, i think what he said a moment ago, that's relevant here but i think it's incredibly important that we help ukraine this year be able to defend its lines. and that is not the same as sort of saying we want it to settle for the status quo or that it should sort of just to get an sort of take the assault from russia. what it is saying is that this is going to take some time, but right now because of its munitions advance, because of what we've what we seen over the last six months, russia feels in position to be able to do this, and that

it's incredibly important that ukraine can hold the line and can prevent russia from making those games, and also impose a heavy cost on russia as it tries to do that. that is a prerequisite for then ukraine subsequently being able to retake territory would not pressure on russia that putin is actually willing to negotiate for real and withdraw from territory. this year especially the next few months i think all of that is rooted critically important. >> okay. this one is from iris, senior advisor at the scowcroft city. whether be sufficient for the july some? it applies back to usual business. war is never business issue. it's a crisis, a battle is either/or when liz. with the washington summit be business as usual are well heads of state government arrived ready to do what it takes? how might we reframe the summit

accordingly to correct this shortfall? >> well, i hope none of the conversation we had today sounds like business as usual. because it has not been business as usual since putin invaded ukraine. it's that been business as usual for nato as we have responded to that threat. so absolutely, this is a summit where we can rightly celebrate the peace nato has delivered and effect needed to deliver at the end of the cold war. but also rightly focus on the immediate threat now, which is defeating putin and ukraine. just to trackback to your last question, i think we should forget as accurate as ambassador kim suggest how extremely ukraine is been used in up to this russian aggression. just how extraordinary they were in repulsing the initial invasion, how extraordinary they were in retaking much of the territory they lost the initial phase. but we all need to think now,

not just nato and ukraine's bargain but ukraine themselves about what they need to do over the coming time to make sure that they finish the job. >> i think we have time for one more question. so make it count. >> my name is that i'm an assistant director at the trend of unseeded initiative here at the celts. i want to check for some and addition to ukraine with the situation in the balkans where it's competent with increasing russian posturing and messaging towards the region and especially for you, ambassador kim picky that expense in the region. what is your view on a we doing enough to really ensure the security of the western balkans? and engage with leaders in a productive way in which battling nato but general trancelike relationship the sort of firmly anchored in the region and across the region. thank you. >> so clearly the big, the big kahuna is still just that we

need to speak with the russians doing in ukraine. at the same time we can walk and chew gum at the same time. and what we also want to do is to pay attention to exactly what you say. countries that are not necessarily geographically but in other ways on the periphery, the balkans. we can see with the russians are tried to do with their disinformation, and we sang a couple of incidents now where it calls to mind an arsonist calling the police station to say there's a fire about to start. so we see it. we also see with the russians were trying to do in the south caucasus. so in all these areas, short answer to question of are we doing enough? i don't know. i don't know i with it that way,

but we should certainly be very, very alert to what the russians are attempting to do there. >> in the last thoughts? >> i think -- [inaudible] cannot and are not losing sight of what's going on in the western balkans. we're moving much too slowly towards accession, but conditions have to be met, to move that along. ..