that 2014 is dramatically better for syria or worse? in terms of the refugee problem? >> what concerns me is the idea of donor fatigue taking hold. we have been trying to get more donations from our countries and so if it continues the way it has, and i would be stupid to suggest it might not, if it continues that way, we have got to somehow enlist new donors to come. >> do you think it would be wise for america to plan for the worst and not hope for best when it comes to syria? >> i agree that in dealing with a refugee crisis of this magnitude, we have to have contingencies for some really scary scenarios. >> let's talk about some of those. they're not unrealistic. you were at -- and i really, you know, you do a good job. i don't mean to be exative here. at the hearing we had in appropriations, didn't the lebanese ambassador say his country was saturated? >> absolutely. he had -- we've provided the

photos so he show that there are syrian refugees on every square turf of lebanon. >> he said they can't take any more people. what's the likelihood in 2014 of lebanon closing their borders to syrian refugees? >> i'm going to try -- >> would you agree that would be a bad situation? >> to keep that from happening. >> trying -- i'm trying to plan for the worst case. >> the worst case scenario would be a lot more refugees streaming out of syria. the amazing thing to me is that not more have. they clearly are trying to stay put. >> i think the worst case scenario would be if they had no place to go. what's the likelihood of lebanon and jordan closing their borders because their countries' sovereignty and security is at risk, to syrian refugees in 2014? >> we have seen that what is happening is that the borders have already been moved from being open in most cases to being managed. >> could you give me a plan,

let's assume for the worst now, what would our response be as the world and as a nation if in 2014, god for bid, the lebanese closed their borders, the jordanians closed their borders? so you don't have to answer that question now. but i think we need to get really serious about this. because i think the worst is yet to come and i got -- and i hope i'm wrong. >> one of the things is good is that the u.n. appeals assume, you though, more challenging scenarios -- you know, more challenging scenarioses and build in those funding. in terms of our being able to respond, i think we have benefited from your work and senator leahy's work last year that provided -- >> but that's nod quat over time, don't you think -- but that's inadequate over time, don't you think? we need to come up with a funding plan. >> the reason it's inadequate is because we haven't seen other countries step up and we have other crises to deal with. the other piece that i want to make sure i mention to you all

today, is that the department of health and human services helps refugees once they've arrived in the u.s. we provide the aid thanks to you all, for the first 30 to the 0 days. 0 days. r that it's -- 9 but after that it's up to h.h.s. >> i've i'm giving you an opportunity here to tell us that maybe the worst is yet to come. and prepare members of congress who are sympathetic with the bill you may send us. so if i were you, i would suggest to take this opportunity to sit down and write out what we may be facing as a nation in terms of our obligations to stabilize the region. that's all i'm asking. >> and we very much appreciate that. just to your point, we keep passing the worst case scenario. so we need to be thinking of that. there have already been extraordinary strains on the system. we keep coming up with new ways of addressing it and we will continue to be faced with that pressure and we would very much

welcome the opportunity to work with you all further on envisioning what that might take. we were able to do the response that we did in this last fiscal year because of the very important support that we received. especially from the senate. so we thank you for that and i think that the partnership into the future will be really, eally important. >> thank you, senator graham. i want to ask three last questions. and i'll ask senator cruz if he'd like to as well. we've not mentioned egypt which is receiving over 130,000 syrian refugees. we read about egypt every day and the political instability and violence in that nation. in lebanon in jordan, i have a different mind's image of what's going on on the grounds, weakness, vulnerability and worry, but in egypt it looks like clear instability. and i'd like to ask, syrian refugees who have fled to egypt face challenges because of this

political turmoil. conditions for syrian refugees who have fled there have deteriorated in recent months as their political environment has deteriorated in egypt. some syrian refugees in egypt have faced arbitrary detention and deportation back to syria. has the u.s. government taken any steps to address the concerns that have been raised about the treatment of syrian refugees in egypt? >> yes, senator. as you said, more than 130,000 syrian refugees have been registered in egypt. there's an additional 20,000 awaiting registration. most are living in greater cairo, significant numbers are also in alexandria. and on july 8 the interim yptian government proposed restriction procedures. tensions have resulted in increasing hostility toward syrians and palestinians from syria and have led to deportation and detention of refugees. the u.s. is providing funding to

unhcr and other agencies to address their needs and unhcr has appealed to egyptian authorities to protect all syrians seeking refuge. at this morning's state department staff meeting we were joined by assistant secretary patterson who until recently was our u.s. ambassador to egypt. so i know she's fully aware of this. and she was part of a conversation this morning about jis. ref >> -- refugees. >> there's a practical issue here on this no lost generation that gets down to something very basic and that is the fact that babies are being born in these refugee settings. recent unhcr survey on birth registration revealed 781 syrian newborns in lebanon. 77% of them had no official birth certificate. they are technically stateless at this point. these numbers are concerning because, as unhcr indicates, unregistered refugee children can face increased risk of

exposure to violence, abuse and exploitation. the numbers may be low when you consider the universe of refugees, due in part to the barriers at birth registry that refugee families encounter at jordan and lebanon, including complex registration procedures. has the u.s. government taken any steps with unhcr, n.g.o.'s and host governments to address the issue of statelessness among syrian refugee children? >> i'll take that and get back to you on that. i know statelessness is one of the unhcr's key mandates, fighting statelessness. and it's something we pay a lot of attention to globally. and i don't know the answer so i'll get back to you on that. thank you. >> so let's use this opportunity to give a shoutout if we've failed to to private sector efforts to try to help in this refugee situation. i understand ikea is trying to develop a new shelter, i don't know much more about it.

>> they have developed it. it's really nifty. as would you expect. but the ikea foundation helps refugee situations in more than other places, but their new shelter is something that can be folded up into a suitcase so that way it can -- the home can travel with the refugees wherever they are. >> it was reported recently, lebanon started to allow these ikea refugee housing units to be used to shelter syrians for fear that housing too sturdy and protective would encourage them to stay indefinitely. i found that interesting. when i traveled around the world and visited with refugees, they're ok but they're usually complaining a little bit. not enough food, problems here. the administrators of many refugee settings have said, we don't want them to get too comfortable. we want them to consider where their next move will be, hopefully it is back home. well, back home is out of the question now with syria's kirks here. but could you address --

circumstances here. but could you address that concern? >> i've had discussions about this with the minister of official affairs in lebanon, and he -- because i was trying to convince him to allow these ikea shelters to be used by the refugees. and so i'm very pleased that they have made this change in their policy. what several governments in the region are concerned about is that they will host the refugees for a long, long time and the reason they are concerned is because jordan, lebanon and syria were three of the five fields that -- where palestinian refugees lived. and now palestinian refugees are fleeing from syria, which was -- had been a very safe place for them to live, and primarily going to lebanon. and so i think we have to respect the government officials who are concerned about protracted refugee situations in

this part of the world because they have firsthand experience with it. and that's partly why i feel we should support them and make it easier for them to host the refugees, even as we try to do everything we can to get those syrian refugees home. >> there's been a great deal of interest in today's hearing. the turnout evidence is that. and dozens of organizations, i'm going to read their names because some of them are doing extraordinarily good work. catholic relief services and others have presented testimony which will be part of the record. center for victims of torture, church world services, the episcopal church, evangelical lutheran church of america, human rights first, international rescue committee, joint statement of iraqi refugee assistance project, human rights initiative of north texas, lutheran immigration and refugee services, mercy corps, oxfam, refugee council u.s.a., refugees international, save the children, syrian american medical society, unicef and

world relief and without objection, i'll place their statements in the record. the record's going to be open for a week. you may get a few additional questions and you promise me a few additional responses. and i appreciate what you had to say. and i will say in closing here, this was a pretty diverse political group sitting up here. and this is not always the type of topic that attracts anybody other than the chairman and a ranking member. and it's an indication to me of something good and positive. we see a problem, we're a caring people, we want to do something about it. we want to be thoughtful, as senator cruz says, not to endanger the united states in any way. but to do our part to deal with a worldwide problem which he appreciates more than any of us could on this panel. so those who have given up on this institution, i hope today's hearing is an indication that sometimes we kind of do move in the right direction, even if we have different starting places. if there are no further comments

from our panel, i want to thank the witnesses for attending, my colleagues for participating, and the hearing stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

show you a roundtable talk on the congressional agenda from this morning's "washington journal." good morning, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for making it hereto csis. program the security here. i am not heather connolly. florida,as trapped in

of all places, by canceled flights yesterday. in good news is she ended up a place with the warmest weather in the u.s., the bad news is, there are no flights going there, so she could not get out. i have the pleasure of introducing urmas reinsalu. the minister of defense since may of 2012 and has been a member of the parliament since 2003. prior to 2003, he was a lecturer at an academy and has held a number of positions in the estonian government. we are privileged to have him here to discuss defense priorities and military modernization plans ahead of the september 2014 nato summit. after his remarks, he and i will discuss issues relevant to estonia's defense and then we will open up to questions from

the audience. lee's join me with a round of applause for urmas reinsalu. [applause] thank you very much for warm, welcoming words. i am coming from the nordic country where we are having an exceptional situation. we do not have snow. here and ited to be am very proud that among us are to helicopter pilots from estonia's air forces, who have served in afghanistan with you and now serve in the maryland national guard. i welcome you here. we will mark a number of important --.

sarajevo andce outbreak of world war i, 70 years since normandy, 65 years since the washington treaty was signed. a quarter of a century since the and 15, 10, and five years since the cold war enlargements. it is a moment for us to look back at what we have achieved. nato, along with the european union, was a natural choice for estonia after regaining independence in 1991. membership in western organizations is seen as the coppola of estonian security. this was a great engine for reform back in the 1990's.

last year, 76% of estonians supported them are sure. the population believed that defense forces should participate in international military operations when they can. i am proud to say that all the , it has been an consensus vote in parliament. the cause of our history, people remember peace and security -- because of our history, people remember that peace and security do not come free. weshould not forget that still need to maintain our defense capabilities and contribute to their lives. there have been discussions about nato's role, but we must keep in mind what has been achieved. with the end of the cold war, global security environment

changed almost overnight. nato adapted to it. of theout the period cold war, nato forces were not involved in a single military engagement. since that time, they have engaged in missions that cover the spectrum of crisis management. today, just under 100,000 military personnel are engaged in nato missions around the world. nato continues to provide multinational command structure capabilities. it is the most powerful military alliance in the world. it hasn't always been easy. many soldiers have lost their lives, including nine estonians in afghanistan. nato has proven that it is able and willing to adapt to reform

and prove that it is still relevant. nato has been an adaptable organization. decisions made during different rounds of enlargement are proof of that. the risk to take and seven more eastern european countries a decade ago turned out to be a worthy one. the security of the planning community has improved through enlargement of nato. however, we cannot take this achievement for granted. security needs constant commitment and improvements, especially in the unpredictable and complex world. nato has to remain active and find ways to engage more. summit in the coming months, we must confirm the we value -- confirm that we value

contribution and we remain open to new members. consensust a understanding today. we should encourage and help countries so that they can prepare better for the next membership. the -- to see up, among we wish to see, among the conclusions of the nato summit, a recommitment to the two percent spending sensible. -- principal. today, five countries out of 28 spend less than 1% of the gdp to defense. than 175 --end more 1.75%.

only four countries crossed the 2% threshold. 1990's, it was 12. if the negative defense spending trend continued, nato's military capabilities and political credibility could be put at risk. outraged bywe are the cost of war, but we are more outraged by the cost of peace. we should not consider europe as but thateneous area, all the countries think and act at the same time. the countries of that understands the necessity to continue to contribute 2% of gdp to defense and who actually does so. when i became minister in 2012, it was the first year that we

contributed 2%. we will remain at that level. is toggest difficulty sustain that level when many others do not respect their commitment. importance that 2%.nato summit reaffirm the we need to keep this as a goal. stating this goal will not instantly changed the defense budgets in europe. versa, it will that benchmark- and will bring additional cost. at the summit, nato must reconfirm its commitment to --. and --ticle five article. the baltic region is the only military's or the

strategic balance is not favor the allies. because of our good friend, russia. ensure nocontinue to outside powers tempted into making a miscalculation. the good work we have done in demonstrating political unity and decisiveness must continue. contingency planning and conducting exercises on a regular basis, second, sending an ambitious, clear, and consistent message to third parties. both contingency planning and exercises should be a normal and routine part of nato's work.

third, the continued stance of the transatlantic link is also one of the main topics of the summit for us. we wish to see the u.s. committed to europe and the european allies committed to a fairer burden sharing. europe a challenge for and we will remain to arise the question among our european allies. burdens a question of sharing inside europe that needs to be addressed. many are frustrated with european level of distance -- of spending.- of defense we should not forget that between 2007 2011, an average of 13 to-- an average of

40,000 --.0,000 to area of theother world that contributes to such a military operation. the last u.s. tank departed from europe in march 2013. i don't know where that tank is, but we miss that tank. understand financial difficulties that you face, i have to underline the importance of american presence and visibility in europe and in the baltic region in particular. it reinforces nato's credibility. in times of diminished resources, having allies willing

to share the burden becomes more important. this seems to be commonly ignored. survey, onlythe natof americans felt that helps countries share the cost of military action and only 12% of europeans said the same. room fora lot of improvement. we have run out of money, and now we have to think. in the baltic states, we have practiced smart defense for more than a decade. i was not -- it was not because we're smart, but because we are small and poor. officers of the free countries

are trained in the one single , baltic defense college, since 1919. we have an air surveillance system and a common mine countermeasure unit. send a balticll battalion to the nato response force. wider than just the free baltic states. i could mention the nordic allle group which includes who canbaltic countries contribute. finland, sweden, ireland, latvia, lithuania, and estonia. we also coordinate our in international military operations. we take part in utm.

we are in discussion about our contribution for support in afghanistan. another topic will be the .reparedness and ability the alliance is currently at the pentacle of our interconnectedness. the glue will start to one stick. to avoid that -- the glue will start to unstick. to avoid this, we must practice on exercises. it is also important, politically, as additional straights -- as it demonstrates continued relevance.

the connected forces initiative is one of the core issues for estonia. we hope to see a robust, forward-looking program with annual live exercises put in place. these exercises should take place all over the alliance on both sides of the atlantic. about the latest nato exercises, , a live exercise took place in poland and in the baltic states. -- was the first large-scale article five live exercise since the cold war. that also worth mentioning this time, allies exercised defending their country.

we have sentimental feelings about that exercise. scenario for solve the defense by thenia bayou via -- alliance, nato has been preparing for that from more than a year and we are better acquainted with our region and its security challenges. [indiscernible] nato forces the ability to exercise. our long engagement and counterterrorism type wars in pain -- and failing states has changed our mindset. it has driven us away from the collective defense approach. the country, who was the biggest contributor was france.

had 1200 participants. the second was poland who contributed 2000 -- 1000 troops. bronze medal, same level, was to the u.s. and --. both contributed with a -- size unit. it was an honor for us to host the cyber defense exercise. it was the first time this exercise took place outside of shape. it involved 400 people in 32 different countries and was a success. we hope to continue hosting such exercises in estonia as training

and exercises are clearly supporting our nation and also nato's capability development. we are gaining experience in this field and are interested in the infrastructure development which should be shared with other allies. thatia has understood ciber is an integral part of the sith -- that cyber is an capabilities.of cyber shouldhat play a bigger role in future exercises. military engagements have given us more than just a dash. they have given us a trust for -- a trustful relationship.

trusted relationships take years to build. connections are only available because you have gone to school together or because you have endured hardships together. relationship that we have built with the u.s. on the field of afghanistan and iraq. combat can replace experience side-by-side care and we wish to maintain this link after the end of the mission and find new openings for cooperation. up,ome, -- to sum it all estonia hopes to see a balanced nato capable of filling its tasks. collective defense, second crisis management, third corps parade of 60 -- third, while printed security. -- cooperative security.

we don't see a need to make revolutionary reforms, but rather focus on core tasks and improve national contributors. a region pessimism about the success of the nato mission in afghanistan, and continued debate about european contributions to burden sharing, 55% of americans and 58% natoeans seen nato -- see as necessary for their country's security. -- wasain value will be to be an alliance of democratic country such back together. -- countries that should act together.

thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for that speech and talk. i think there is a lot here for us to dig into. of thest i think comments you made that i was struck by was the recommitment to the two percent metric. that is something that we struggled with in the alliance for some time. the real question is -- how can we be persuasive on this? if we use your thought that might beaving it, we in more of a freefall than was happening -- then with having it, what do we do to persuade

the countries that are not currently making the 2% in the absence of an overwhelming threat. think those of us who are making the mark can do to be persuasive to other countries? >> i try to avoid being provocative. >> provocative is a good thing. >> not in nordic countries. i think what is important is to applaud the success stories. in nato and european union, i hear the sayings that we have a prisoners dilemma. we try to balance during the crisis, wefinancial have to make cuts to defense. estonia has proven it is possible to do them both. hese are not contradiction

ary aims. we have a balanced budget. we have the smallest national debt in the eu and we have been succeeded in -- succeeded to move against the ties of europe. when countries are doing cuts to defense spending, we are doing vice versa. we are creating more -- recruiting more men and women into the army, and buying more weaponry, etc.. we are not doing it for fun. this is our view of security. a small country needs to be a net provider of the security. cornerstone ofa the way to show the european

allies the way forward. a clear ands that sound message is what the u.s. has given. secretary hagel clearly put the message that europe has to understand that this will not be sustainable. domestic seen in the u.s. will one day -- because of the viewpoint of --. has european allies have to understand it and not returned to -- turn to nato was such a negative sera there -- negative scenario. smartt brings to mind defense and how countries can contribute and the baltic

seminar that states have had this great example already. what lessons do you think the baltic cooperation, what lessons can that provide to other states in europe who are looking are smart defense approach? about therried overusing the word smart defense in a way of excusing the defense cuts. it doesn't matter how much money we put in. is alsosomething that commonly heard. the -- to positive thing, like self-evident, but the smart defense, i think were a good

example of smart defense from permanent air policing over the baltic sky. i am happy to inform you that for me last friday, the u.s. pilots and planes are taking their duty to defend estonia and latvia and lithuania. i am positive about a security and defense dimension of the european union. i think the joint procurements and programs of developing certain new security, weapon systems have turned to be successful once.

>> you mentioned the u.s. air force for dissipation in the baltic air policing and also spoke about the last u.s. take -- tank leaving europe. what are the most critical u.s. capabilities for defense of european territories? focus itselfu.s. on if it needs to focus, in capabilitiesiding forward into europe? what makes the most impact with you and your public? in our region, it is a special area because we are the nato where we have capabilities.

the most important is a complex of different actions which could presence. as a , visits, arcises clear and sound political statement when they are needed. surely, the crown jewel would be the permanent presence of the u.s. troops in european soil. i would be pleased to see a permanent u.s. presence in my homeland, but i understand the reality today. baltic countries are special presenceas much as

that the u.s. could produce, i think as efficient as it will be also to encourage european theiries to for so responsibility -- to fulfill their responsibility. domestic scene looks that european countries are out, and european countries are moving towards the pacific, this is something we have to avoid, both ships are going far away from each other. >> what is your sense of the u.s. rebalance approach and how it is being received in europe and have the u.s. has spoken to europe about its strategy. ? is a worrisome? is it understandable? the u.s. takes it seriously

that they need to explain what their agenda is. senator hagel has given a very sound comment on that. surely, especially eastern , the u.s. astries being a shown actor in the area will be a consistent one. theink we understand financial challenges on the u.s. presence couldt mostoduced in the

cost-efficient way, especially in our region and we would be very much appreciate in coming on the agenda for alliance or bilateral cooperation. >> let me open it up to the audience. we have a few folks with microphones, when on you if you can tell us your name and your affiliation. we will start in the back. >> hi. i am a regular around here. i have watched nato from the and my thinking, i have managed to divide it into two organizations, separate. i called a micro and macro. the first, mike rowe, -- the

, existed whenato there was no fighting done, no warring. was when the expansion began to take place, when we started to bring people miles away from the north atlantic. from an outsider standpoint, that macro nato has become an antagonist or an aggressor. is that some of the reason you think people have started to back away? am i correct? i might not be. mentioned natoou since the beginning, although you look younger than 65 years. tell my country's

viewpoint on international missions. thestonia, we explain to public why we are broad and why women tour boys and afghanistan, iraq, africa, why we're doing it. sake ofoing it in the the liberty of our country. they're defending the liberty of our country there and they are doing it so that the most practical way is to solve the re the in the area whe crisis occurs. if the crisis is bigger and bigger, it will put to the ha

ndcuffs nato and the allies to act. this is something i will not this is position to say something like we see as an aggressor. in all cases, we know that the humanitarian need and democratic values, why nato acts in rios, those are to mystified understanding of the principles of liberty, dignity of humans. >> think you. all the way in the back -- thank you. all the way in the back on the other side. >> you mentioned that the baltic is the only region in europe from aato suffers

minority position where the balance is against nato thanks to russia. where does the balance work on behalf of russia and against nato? >> i will mention some figures. balancew that a certain region is turning in coming times. in favor of the nato allies in the region. years,mthe four last russia has doubled its strategic weaponry in our region. say that the state partook

in about 6000 nato troops was scenariost article 5 exercise after the cold war. so was -- 2013. , aggressivegest some are now based off of the west exercise after the cold war. bothstimate took part together,oops and all about 100,000 troops. there are lists of different activities from the russian side that we see in a historical sense in the western dimension

and military region. in russia, this is one of the priority regions of russia. in addition to that, and has been turned a priority to the future way. whether it will be a danger or not, this is a -- political question. from a military viewpoint, we understand that the balance is not in favor of nato in our region. this is a reality. thank you. >> a question, right here. when you mentioned the kinds of things the united states can do to ensure the u.s.'s

commitment to nato security, you did not mention the presence of tactile a call -- tactical nuclear weapons in belgium and turkey. with the end of the cold war and declining defense budgets here and in nato member states, keeping those things in mind, do you think nato can adapt its nuclear sharing arrangement with and what steps can the u.s. take to ensure nato security without the presence of tactical nuclear weapons in europe? would say i am a realist nuclear weaponry and the nuclear power balance. looking to the tactical nuclear

weapons, also. nuclear deterrence is needed for nato. didn't mention it in my speech, i will do it now. very valuable -- which the u.s. produces for the security of the alliance. the reality is that nuclear is very clearly seen in 's defensen federation strategy. there have been comments that the u.s. -- diminished nuclear weaponry. thes only because of

weaponry that the u.s. will have more power. that the russian federation, looking from our region's viewpoint, will have nuclear weaponry in their strategic military thinking using the tactic nuclear weapons if the situation will demand it. very sound way to use it from the military landing .iewpoint this is something we are aware. thank you. >> does the doctrine seem to be moving into a nuclear dependent approach? are, what areu

the most worrisome trends in terms of russian military thinking? what worries you the most? think, something, i want to not be paranoid. the danger of the military actions or conflict in our today.is very low reality is that what we see russiantic is that in strategical thinking, to achieve the political aims military meansp is quite justified.

taryndly, for their mili thinking, the main danger is a military attack from the west side, from the nato side to russian soil. this is a second one. thirdly, i think this problem is the lack of transparency in their way of thinking and decision making and the way globaluld achieve politics. b our region, the military negative minor or compared to the russian federation troops. situationsoduce the

-- where a dangerous situation could appear, not because of visa the problems between russia and estonia or russia and latvia, but because it is an area where it would be easy to take rebalance in the global situation. if there appears a conflict between the russian federation and the u.s. or nato. the russia, in tv, they started public discussions and crisis was inn the peak and the solution was discussionshere was

about whether the u.s. was going to send missiles. in russia, there was discussion, should we, to balance the situation, should also take some parts back from latvia and we would like to make a repayment to the u.s. then. it is intriguing. >> all the way over here. >> i want you to touch briefly on european defense policy and dppand on how you assess es and whether it is resulting in duplicate structures that duplicate what exists in nato.

which is onsue discussion in the european union. the heads of state discussed at last december. i was quite satisfied. from the signla thaal that union, water ration is ration --a whopper cooperation is needed. going toean union is work on military capabilities as therdly, i think minority of the country's belong

to the nato and european union, i think the very logical with be not to duplicate, but to standardize different actions. logical if wevery are speaking about cyber defense. that level of cyber defense of the european union institutions natod nato institutions, headquarters should be the same. crisis, it of major is more productive. i think the u.k. is very strong, too strong of a watchdog. union has not developed its military security corporation. it is always finding a balance.

knowing have turned a step forward -- now, we have turned a step forward. >> we have time for two more. i wanted to ask you about your thoughts on the recent failure to engage with the ukraine on the part of the european union and you believe this will make more certain the need to expand its own of allies and friends in the region. >> for estonia, and eastern european countries to go to the it is historical moment only. we will never have a chance later. is very strong message today. looking, those

former soviet union countries and eastern european possibilityhether to choose their own path is between the two basic core doors. -- corridors. ukrainian situation is very clear. i think we understand what the .utin plans he wants to build on the ruins

of the former soviet union the where ak of countries strategic role surely plays ukraine. meansre using all of the to achieve that aim. i think what is very important andhat the western leaders also the public audience should send a very clear message. the first message is to kremlin that it is unacceptable to in fluence the dependent countries to make me options -- to make the options about the nation's future. the second is that it is unacceptable to use violence against its own people.

this is the message that needs to be given to you on a covert. to janokovich. fragmentedn is also and you have to be careful with red lines, where you put it. opposition has demanded several ifferent issues, but i think the opposition is able to get the different structure and

think it united, i too.be a real challenge suspcious that they would move the country to europe. he will not go. be iserent question would not a case where europe union of values could take one country just on the principles of money or the need of money. this is not a -- not just a marketplace, but this is a union for europe and the fatal mistake that they have made. >> final question.

right here. i appreciate your comments on restrictions for nato, looking forward the -- forward to the summit. can you elaborate on your die reveries- domestic -- domestick i'm priorities? you mean the military capability priorities? for our first, it is most reaction, rapid capability force, what we have learned from the trojan war, what we have learned from the philosophy of modern warfare, the rice is occur within days.

we need to be ready to act. to give our allies a chance when the 2 -- collective defense a chance tole v, past decisions and make logistical movements. in estonia, as we are moving against the tide in investing. there is one element where we are in the modern world in a minority group of countries. we believe strongly in national construction system -- we believe strongly in a national conscription system. after we joined nato, there was the economy -- the academy discussion, whether it was practical. 90% of estonia reported, not because it is cost efficient to

hold a reserve army having rapid reaction capability. is also a strong moral dimension. free men are taking the duty to defend their country. very importantng to estonians. very strongly because of our historic reasons. is, during the next 000ade, to establish 21, rapid reaction troops in the army. within ach the button, very short timeframe, we will have such an army. it was based on the reserves system. >> thank you. >> thank you so much for

covering such a great amount of ground with us. for your talk and for your interaction and also for the great partnership and alliance that we have with estonia. and he's very much, please join me with a round of applause. [applause] i was very privileged to be here. to receive you here, thank you very much. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]