counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us to give perspective on the nato meeting host: joining us is the u.s.ing ambassador to nato and served as a special representative for the ukraine'6". thanks for your time.

host: how would you describe the meetings in washington, d.c.? guest: the main purpose, and i suppose this can be achieved is to show the allies remain united. nato and everyone is committed to the idea of collective defense, if any one nato ally is attacked, we will all respond together to protect ourselves. more questions will come up around that, maybe some that raise concerns, but the heart is that. host: how would you describe the reasoning of the uniting, the forces that made that happen? guest: it's super simple. anyone country having to defend itself if attacked is going to face existential threat. if they ban together with other countries, they are more powerful. it is going to be easier or better in terms of defending

themselves against an adversary. because of that, it less likely they will be attacked. nato is actually never been attacked by a conventional force or conventional adversary and 75 years because they have banded together to commit to collective defense. the only time that the article five collective defense issue was invoked was after the terrorist attack on the united states, 9/11, different and unusual circumstance. but in terms of russian attacks or other conventional attacks on nato, has never happened and likely will not as long as the allies stick together. remind -- host: remind people of the scope and what they bring to the table when it comes to defense? guest: nato was founded 75 years ago in 1949 with 12 countries, countries that were seen as having successfully prosecuted world war ii. we survived, we protected democracy, those countries

wanted nato to protect europe against a potential soviet threat coming on the heels of that. that worked. over time, nato added countries, there's now a total of 32 that included every european democracy, western europe, central europe, southern europe, northern europe, and the latest two countries to join were finland and sweden. they were neutral for decades and in the case of finland, hundreds of years for sweden, but they joined because they saw the threat that russia presents today and felt safer being a part of nato. now we have 32 countries in the alliance. host: you said that there could be specifics coming out of the meeting over the wide scope of unity. how much of that will involve ukraine? guest: not much, to be honest. there will be a couple of incremental steps. until now nato has done nothing for ukraine. everything has been done by

individual allies like the united states, great britain, or poland. as an alliance, they have done nothing. that's about to change because we are about to take the assistance coordination process it has been led outside nato and we will put a nato flag over that. there will be a new nato mission to help ukraine. this will be coordinating military assistance, helping with the defense reform and defense industrial production and procurement. things that will be designed with a long-term perspective in mind to help ukraine establish a capable military establishment for the future. when it comes to the immediate helping of ukraine when the war, creating any kind of fund or nato role in directly assisting ukraine, inviting ukraine to join nato, none of those things are going to happen. host: any incremental steps to the possibility of ukraine joining nato? guest: not really. they are using new language. they are calling it a bridge to

nato membership. i don't know what that means, exactly. you are either invited to join or you are not and in this case, they are not. we keep promising that one day they will be, but we are not doing it now, didn't do it last year, it's actually been 16 years since we said they would one day be a member and we have taken no concrete steps to get there. host: what's your preference? guest: i would be happier if they were in right now. they are the strongest, most capable, most battle hardened and interoperable military in europe today. the more -- the war that we face in europe right now is the biggest since world war ii and the whole reason it is happening is because they were not in nato. vladimir putin felt that he could get away with attacking and taking away ukrainian territory. now we need to help ukraine get what it needs to end the war and defeat vladimir putin in ukraine and bring them into nato as

quickly as possible so that we can deter future attacks. the whole point is to prevent the next war. by letting this one rage on, especially if putin prevails in some way, we are setting the stage for the next war. host: the ambassador is with us until 8:30 and if you want to ask him questions, you can call the lines. (202) 748-8000 for. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us your questions or thoughts that (202) 748-8003 -- at (202) 748-8003. ambassador volker, i want to get your sense of what the alliance could be thinking when it comes to president biden, his health, and how it could impact the alliance overall. guest: unfortunately, this is on the mind of every single nato leader coming to washington this week. it wasn't only american voters who watched the debate.

it was all of our allies and adversaries who watched the debate as well and it is now on the mind of everyone. the world needs, nato needs a strong united states, strong u.s. leadership in order to deter aggression in the world, to lead the alliance. now they have serious doubts about president biden possibility to do that. not only about whether he is a good democratic nominee to run for reelection in november, whether he is up for the task today as president and what it means for the future of nato if president biden is in for another four years. and if we don't have him and we end up with another four years of former president trump, what does that mean for nato? he has famously come out and said that he doesn't support nato and encouraged vladimir putin to go ahead and attack countries that didn't pay their fair share of nato defense expenditures. that's very alarming to europeans as well so they are

deeply concerned about the future of american leadership. host: if that's the case concerning the current president, do you share those concerns? guest: i do. i think that president biden needs to show people that he is capable. because we do face the most critical set of security threats in the world today that i can remember in my lifetime. the biggest war in europe. over a half of a million people killed in that war already. probably more than that. you have threats from china against taiwan. iran attacked israel directly and used proxies to attack israel. there are efforts to overthrow governments in sub-saharan africa and latin america and a lot of these things are connected. russia gets its drones from iraq. they get artillery shells from north korea. they are providing missile technology to north korea. china is propping up the russian economy. we face a very serious set of

threats in the world right now that are impacting the united states and our allies. we need strong u.s. leadership and the president of the united states needs to be the person to step up and do that. host: talking about the former president, post editors writing this morning that the republican national committee 2000 24 platform adopted in milwaukee makes no mention of ukraine or nato and generically calls for preventing world war iii and restoring peace in europe, adding that it's a far cry from 2016 when they supported assistance for the ukrainian armed forces with greater coordination for nato defense planners. that being the case, what are your concerns? guest: i'm not concerned about that at all. i don't know the last time that a political party platform was meaningful at all in terms of how the party governed after being elected. better to say something than the

wrong thing. there's uneasiness with where we are and that's understandable but the reality is the war in ukraine will get worse and putin will keep fighting a must we show more strength. i don't think that is a popular political passage, so maybe it's not something they want to advertise, but it is the reality. this talk of saying ok, stop the fighting, that's not going to stop the fighting. just like president obama saying we were going to end two wars. what he meant was we were going to withdraw. it didn't end the wars, didn't stop the fighting. didn't prevent the taliban or isis from growing. all it did was get the u.s. out. in the case of ukraine, the war will go on and get worse if we don't support ukraine and it will spread to other countries because the russian empire was not just russia and ukraine. it included finland, baltic states, parts of the soviet union. these are things that vladimir putin has on his agenda if he

gets away with taking ukraine. host: michelle, florida, democratic line for our guest, ambassador volker. michelle, go ahead. caller: yes. i'm 78 years old. i've been democrat republican in past years. what i would like to know is -- why are you not and some of the other politicians discussing project 2025 and how it will impact the nato situation? i hear all kinds of things about people being not interested in joe biden because of his age. this has nothing to do with joe biden's age. this has to do with a hidden agenda on project 2025 that people do not know about. and they are not discussing it

on all channels. i listen to eight different channels on tv. i listen to the radio channels. no one is talking about trump's republican 2025 -- host: what is it specifically about international affairs that concerns you the most and what did you want to ask our guest about? caller: that's what i was trying to find out. how is the impact going to occur? what's going to be going on with that project in relation to nato and other european countries? host: ok, michelle there in florida. ambassador, you have heard about this project for the next conservative administration coming in. go ahead. guest: for your viewers, 2025 is an initiative -- initiative of the heritage foundation.

they wanted to identify people who could serve in a trump administration in advance, that them and get a sense of what their views are, make sure you have a stable of people ready to go into the administration from day one. remember when president trump was elected the first time, he didn't have a lot of nominees ready to go and it was almost two years before he put people into his administration. this is the initiative the heritage admin is -- foundation has taken. it doesn't mean that trump has bought into this or that any of those people are people he's going to nominate. this is just an entrepreneurial effort by a think tank to appear relevant and try to do something. good for them, you know, it's an entrepreneurial society, it is worth their effort. i'm not terribly worried about it. just like we talked about the party convention and the platform adopted in milwaukee, that's not going to bind president trump to anything he does while in office. likewise, nothing to heritage foundation says will bind trump

to anything. ultimately it is about who is elected president, who do they appoint, and what of the policies they follow? we are going to see a lot of that, we are not going to know a lot of that until it actually takes place if he is elected. he's not going to commit himself to things in advance. he's going to observe the situation that exists on the day when he's president and decide then what to do about it. host: joseph is next, republican line, new jersey. caller: i just got a couple of things to say if you let me finish my points. first of all, when i hear the gentleman talk about nato, the only time it was used was after 9/11. i'm a retired new york city firemen. i was down there, i did my small part. that day affected our country. but hasn't our country given

enough lives for europe since world war i? how many kids did we leave on normandy beach? the korean war, the vietnam war, these young american kids killed to help other countries. this is the united states of america, not the united states of europe. i think that we worry too much about europe. one more thing, i don't trust my government anymore. the man on here today that was involved in the impeachment hearings for president trump, president trump was totally exonerated about looking into president biden and his corrupt family. my government didn't investigate it, purposely, for politics. he turned out to be right. i'm supposed to trust my government now when he let hunter biden and his family get $20 million? host: we will let our guest address the point you made. guest: i think that the key question he is asking is --

hasn't the u.s. sacrificed enough for other countries? the problem is, take the point in itself. was it a mistake for the u.s. to support europe in world war ii, to defend britain and france against hitler's? was it a mistake to end world war one in a stalemate to prevent people from dying? it was the right thing to do generally and it was also in u.s. interests. if hitler's had prevailed in europe, we would be facing a very different world today than the one that we face. same thing in world war i. as much as yes, it is a burden for the united states to provide leadership in the world, it's also supportive of our own interests. if we allow putin, and with putin we are talking about aggression, war crimes, rape, torture, killing, everything you could imagine, this imperialist genocidal mentality to eliminate

a whole people, like we talked about with israel, israel wanting to wipe iran off the map , russia is literally trying to wipe ukraine off the map. if we allow that to happen, we will face more war and conflict in more places and it will affect us. cheaper for us, better for us to give the ukrainians the equipment. host: there's a viewer asking this morning that president trump didn'y he supported nato in didn't say he wanted wanted, bragging that hee extracted brick -- greater contributions that he would help him if contribution levels weren't met. guest: that's actually accurate, whoever your viewer is, that's exactly what trump is doing. he uses hyperbole and bragging and brutal rhetoric and language to make a point. the point that he was making is that we need european allies to spend more on defense and we

need to get them to actually do it, not just say so. that's what he was talking about. that rhetoric was used in a campaign rally where he was trying to explain to voters -- here is how i was tough, here is how i got european allies to spend more. it created very negative reactions in europe immediately afterwards. so, he changed it and was asked the same question in a month, answering positively rather than negatively and it was the leader of the reform party and the u.k. who was on a stage with trump and ask him -- if a country has spent 2% of gdp on defense, it has treated the u.s. fairly, you would come to their defense question mark he said absolutely, 100%. -- defense? he said absolutely, 100%. host: there's a record number of nato allies hitting their defense targets with ukraine and when it comes to spending by nato countries, does the

president have a role or are there other factors? guest: i think he does. i think he shocked some countries into spending more but the biggest role was played by vladimir putin, launching the biggest war in europe since world war ii he has because every country in europe to wake up and realize they may actually have to fight to defend themselves so they had better get ready. host: brad joins us from ohio. caller: hello, ambassador. good to see you today. guest: good to hear from you. caller: i can't disagree with anything you just said. first of all, the constitution does tell us to fight against communism here and abroad, number one for american history. and also, it underscores the importance of nato. i've met 100-year-old vets that

stormed normandy and i have a different perspective on how nato is there any general public, i guess, in some respects. and also, it's a great point to also say that ukraine, a lot of people from america, when the war started, if we remember correctly, our own military, because of democracy and what you were speaking of and how vladimir putin is as a person, frankly, a murderer -- i mean, the guy, you know, he settler. how we don't want to fight them there is beyond my comprehension . with old, conventional weapons we have actually kept russia at the door of ukraine instead of overrunning that country. i just hear a bunch of people saying we shouldn't be there.

you know? that we are spending too much money over there and there is no allocation for how it's being spent. host: got your point. thank you. go ahead. guest: i think the point that he's making, and i agree, we are very conscious of the costs of action. if we do something, we know what it costs, we have to budget for it and have to know how to do it. we don't calculate often the costs of in action. when you allow a war criminal like putin to take over another country, the consequences of that, the consequences of what he will do next, those are things that we don't stop to calculate, they are higher than the costs of actually just giving ukraine weapons to defend itself. host: from chris, boston, democratic mine, hello. caller: thanks. yeah, 2010, the national security archives released the archives of the 1990 transcripts

of a conversation between james baker and gorbachev, in which james baker promised gorbachev that he would turn to german reunification and nato would not expand eastward. since then, we found out that nato has extended all the way up to russia's borders. if you need confirmation of what i just said, you can go to the national security archives and on page six and page nine, the references to the non-expansion of nato. what nato wants to do, what the united states wants to do is to do to russia what it did to yugoslavia, break it into its own component provinces. perhaps your guest is unaware and you should check out the national security archives website. thanks and have a hostile day. guest: well, several things to respond to their, thanks very much.

yugoslavia broke up, the west that not break them up, because you had a serbian power at the center of yugoslavia abusing the other parties. at the moment they had the chance to flare independence and leave, they did. same with the soviet union. the kremlin wasn't able to control all of the other republics in the soviet union. they broke off and there pendants because they didn't want to be -- declared independence because i didn't want to be under the thumb of moscow. that could happen within russia because there are many nationalities there that don't want to be there. as far as nato enlargement goes, you are right to say that the issue of nato enlargement was discussed by baker, gorbachev, and others at the time, but it was not agreed to. there was no commitment, there was no agreement that nato would not expand ever. there was an agreement as part of those talks on unification of

germany that the nato military architecture would not be extended into eastern germany, the former german democratic republic and that has not happened. but there was never any discussion or commitment about poland, baltic states, any other country. it would be illogical if that had come up, the warsaw pact still existed at that time. those countries, like the baltic states, were still a part of the soviet union and it was never discussed. host: i want to ask you about the missile strikes reported yesterday in kyiv, hitting that children's hospital, how those events could complicate what goes on here and from the support of nato countries and the united states. guest: first off, it's a terrible, tragic event, the largest children's hospital in kyiv hit by missiles.

it's outrageous. viewers need to understand that russia does this every day. it's not a one-off, it's not an accident, it's not a new thing. this is something russia does every day. they launch missiles, drones, and attack ukrainian civilians and infrastructure. i met with someone from ukraine yesterday here in washington who was over for the summit dings. -- meetings. they have electricity for two hours a day because russia has knocked out the power stations in that part of ukraine. they have very, very long brownouts. this is what russia deliberately does every day. it should inspire us to give ukraine what it needs to defeat russian forces. so far we are unwilling to do that and i don't think it is going to change at the summit, but i do hope it changes at some point. host: one more call from conrad

in pennsylvania, republican mine. caller: [indiscernible] all the other countries. [indiscernible] united states, i hear all of the stuff about these other countries that can't turn their lights on for two hours a day, but we need help from republicans and democrats. you all can talk about everything in the world, but we've got people cutting out and senior citizens that have to work because they cannot pay for health care. since y'all got all this knowledge, what about us? host: ok. guest: it's a fair question. i think that our political leaders, our congress, we need today care of our own country, no question about it. the types of things you are mentioning, prices, health care, education, they are tremendously important and we need to do that, but we cannot ignore the

rest of the world either. we can do both at the same time. if we ignore the rest of the world, it comes to find us and we have experienced that many times in our history. it's not either or, it's both and. we have to protect arc on -- serve our country and protect war from coming to our shores. host: are you concerned about mission creep when it comes to nato at large? guest: i'm concerned that we haven't really realized what's at stake. the mission should be simple. the mission should be to make sure that russian forces face overwhelming odds and cannot defeat ukraine so that russia recognizes that and stops the war. until russia feels that -- until russia sees that kind of overwhelming force, they are going to keep fighting and killing and we are going to face the prospect of a much larger war.

so, they have to be stopped and i think we are stuck in this mode of saying we cannot escalate, cannot provoke prudent, can't go to world war iii, and we are missing the point that if we don't stop them, like when we didn't stop hitler's in the sudeten land, if we don't stop him now, we are going to see worse later and it is going to cause us more. -- costs us more. host: ambassador kurt volker, host: ambassador kurt volker,

rear talking strategies to do that whether it's on the defense side i when they need the repair of the government mr. host: what are the right questions? guest: what is the clear objective and how does the taxpayer benefit the most and mutual benefit for those americans bearing the burden overseas. how much should we be involved and of course asking the smart question, how do we get our partners to be strong allies in that so we're not lifting all of the burden. host: if those are the questions, what are the answers in your mind? guest: they are a collaboration in strength in allies.

we're celebrating the 75th anniversary of nato. it's really that time to shift the focus and burden in european defense first and foremost from our european allies. what we're in makes nato stronger and better future allegiants. host: no american boots on the ground though the u.s. military is involved in various aspects. what's the concern with the use of those resources? guest: push back a little bit. as a military operation specialist guy, we have a intelligence asset and military divisions there. there are pernell in proximate relation -- personnel there in

proximate relation to the activities. but weaver seen the invasion in 2022 and we're talking deep strike missions in russian territory and putz the u.s. a lead power in a nuclear war with russia. we have to be smart how we deploy, number one, our forces, and secondarily, how do we deploy our financial responsibilities. host: our previous guest talked about an end game or figured out how it ends for everybody involved, including the united states. would you say that hasn't been sketched out yet? guest: if it has, it hasn't been clearly sketched out for the american public. you talk about the end game, this is something that veterans like myself have dealt with the last 20 years. there's never a clear strategy for how this will end. and all of the power and influence of the united states has with our allies, we ought to be the lead diplomatic negotiation for the ending. what does the off ramp look like and how do we get back to a

detente with russia so we're not in a hot war proxy simmering war. host: our guest is with us and if you want to ask him about the event of nato this weekend and issues involved, can you do so on the line, 202-748-8000, for democrats, 202-748-8001, and 202-748-8002 if you're an independent. and if you're a veteran, call us 202-748-8003 and send us a text at that same number as well. and you talked about a detente or at least a resolve, is that the best solution in your mind? guest: i don't think we have a lot of good options here. we've been in this engagement about three years now as a partner supporter to ukraine. the problem is it can go on for a long time. some of these wars could end up being 10 years or maybe longer. the united states is looking for what happens after this which is

important and if we're not asking those questions now, what we don't want to do is get to the end of a conflict like in aching or iraq and leave -- afghanistan or iraq and we need a plan to know what that detente looks like. host: to combat veterans, it's clear american military events characterizes traits of the rest of the campaigns? guest: what does the end game look like? we heard that after the invasion of iraq or afghanistan. and you end up with platitudes we want victory and nobody defines that so as a soldier on the ground you have a difficult time working with the population to understand what is the end goal here? so clear objectives and a full commitment from the united

states. anything less than that leaves us in positions of quandary and ambiguity and ambiguity in the military is the worst thing we can have. host: give us a bit of your military background and how it informs what you do today? guest: 22 years in the military, both from the navy to army from the first persian gulf war to post 9/11 campaign and was a special forces campaign and doing clandestined operations on the field and gives me a view of the battlefield itself and the combat roles and the policy against it and where the policy is lacking is where soldiers like myself have had a difficult time coming to grips with how are we dispositioned for the win. host: james beardly with us from concerned veterans for america. we hear from rhonda. rhonda is in illinois, democrats line for our guest. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. you know, i really think we

should give ukraine some airplanes. there is no reason why not, it's not no way to fight a war. it's obvious that putin wants the lithium that ukraine has. that's what he wants. it helps him out. and he's nothing but little hitler. and as far as orban in nato, i'd give him a ultimatum he couldn't refuse. if you want to go and play patty cake with russia, we'll throw your ass right out of nato and we'll isolate you. and you sure as heck ain't going to get no military aid from us. i mean, this guy stands by trump and he's just like trump. the guy raped a 5-year-old little girl. i know what kind of people they are.

host: rhonda in illinois. guest: i appreciate your passion, calling from illinois, one of our great states that attributed to the military alliance. you mentioned and rhonda talked about how do we ensure ukraine can win and you talked specifically, rhonda, about airplanes, f-16's and that's been on the table from the beginning and always been a hot topic and there's complexity there. chairman mccaul addressed the nato summit yesterday and spoke very aggressively about having the desire to get airplanes to ukraine. so there are large contingents or cohorts of politicians who have wanted that but there's another cohort who has offered, giving that deep strength capability to ukraine can lead to the escalation with russia. once the ukrainians penetrate in russian territory, now we're talking about anest came la tore war -- about an escalatory war with russia. there are those who believe they

should have air capabilities. but the u.s. has been hesitant about missiles and you'll hear about the increase for zelenskyy to have six or seven of these patriot defenses so look for that to be reinforcing their air capability. as far as orban, we all can recognize there are different views about how to engage russia, but i think the important thing is not so much who or how or that we are engaging russia throughout this process. for us to get to an end goal or end situation if there is no dialogue or diplomatic treaty, we'll have a much harder time when this wraps up. host: our line from veterans, from steven in virginia. go ahead. you're next up. caller: as a veteran myself, i spent a year in iraq and i appreciate your guest's comments about lack of end goal and clarity in the mission, but i would want to chime in, i think the goal in ukraine is pretty clear, it is to force russia to back off on the aggression.

we can't have countries invading other countries in the western world. it's a nonstarter because i understand the escalation concerns but have the fight now or have a larger fight later potentially. it's superdelicate, no argument there but i think it's a clear goal and that's all i had to say. host: great. caller: thanks for your service in iraq. as far as the clear goal, the question we're coming to the table with is apart from the idea of pushing russia back or giving some counter to russia is what that goal looks like on the ground, the geographical borders, the eastern provinces or crimea, and there's been talk about retaking crimea and would lead to an offensive strategy with ukraine, so in the general form pushing back on russia is relatively clear but if you listen to the state department and department of defense, lloyd austin, for example, talked about our goal should be to hurt russia, to increasingly put pain

on their strategic forces which you can argue we've done that pretty well so far. that itself is not an end goal. it's a sort of direction or sentiment that those goals need to be articulated. what is it, are we ok with crimea in the hands of russia or do we insist on retaking that? what about the two eastern provinces in the dinesk region and is it necessary for a win and what does it look like? i appreciate your comments and time again. it is complex and why we need to hear more from our leaders. host: president biden allowed certain american weapons to be fired to targets on russian soil. what do you think of the decision itself and does it lead to larger mission creep, so to speak, this comes to what's going on in ukraine? guest: americans can look at the decision and ask what is actually happening here? because in the beginning it was off the table and seen asparuhov education leading toest -- seen

as a provocation leading to an escalation. but three years into it, americans want to go to the president and say what's the calculus and it was specifically off the table but now it's back on the table and we want to know why. the counter strikes would be for the defense of car keif and where they would -- of karkyev and where they would target. and we talked about they should be able to strike in russia whenever they want and specifically target their energy supplies. those of us in the audience have to wonder, well, was there ever a mission strategy here or was there a clearly defined goal or was this something they change every time something changes on the battlefield? you can be sure of one thing as a military veteran, on the battlefield, whatever plans you have will always change. we need some flexibility.

but the purpose of our concerned veterans for america are to make sure the leaders are held accountable for a clear, unambiguous victory or support position. host: to what degree have you talked to the white house about your concerns and what was the conversation? guest: we haven't had clear talks but we've made sure of our position and we asked for the strengthening of the allegiance in general. since 2014 we've seen european countries commit to that 2% target of their g.d.p. spending for defense. they were around 2014 and this year projected to have about 23 other countries lead at that 2%. it's working. what we had to say, and this is president after president, going back to eisenhower. you must take a role in their defense. concerned veterans for america like to see the europeans will strengthen their military readiness and therefore become more