by a panel discussion on ukraine with former russian german and polish officials. >> in 1997 my daughter hillary and i have for hillary in my own family, then it presents senior majoring in politics pics nato as her thesis topic. she called her mom then in my third term in congress to get my assessment. so i had to really think about

it. nato expansion have been agreed upon and in 1994 brussels declaration and there was real enthusiasm certainly in the united states congress. the senate voted 89-19. that's a very initial vote these days in 1998 to ratify the addition of three countries to nato poland hungary and the check republic. 16 countries have now been added through six rounds of enlargement since the end of the cold war. but there were also skeptics. tom friedman the writer tom friedman who also is a former wilson scholar wrote an op-ed last month in which he quoted his 1998 interview with it then 94-year-old george kennan. said kennan, i think the russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. we have signed up to protect a whole series of countries even

though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. so segue to 2014 and the urgent challenge to de-escalate conflict and avoid miscalculation over the events in ukraine and russia. nato expansion is again being scrutinized. today's topic into the fold or out in the cold could not be more timely or fit better with what the wilson center does well our kennan institute headed by matt who is was sitting in the corner right here was founded by the kennan family and boasts over 1400 scholar alumni, 100 of which are currently on the ground in ukraine and our global europe program headed by christian osterman are here has hundreds of scholar alumni bordering the conflict zone. we have assembled the program

today including former officials from russia and poland who were key roles in 1994. wolfgang is injured who is of policy planning at the german foreign office the deputy assistant secretary of nato and the wilson center global fellow cheryl cross. news our star margaret warner right over there will moderate but here to keynote kickoff our conversation is secretary of defense chuck hagel who was elected to the senate in 1997 and voted for nato expansion. i checked. after his remarks he will take a few questions from the audience. secretary hagel, a close friend is the first enlisted combat veteran to lead the department of defense and we all know that serving in government at the highest levels is a combat sport his plate is full with the afghan drawdown, the pivot to

asia, realignment of missions in resources and a very tough budget constraints. the russia ukraine issue is yet another and nato's capacity and future role are on the line. as a member of myself on the defense policy board i grapple with this issue with their colleagues earlier this week. mines far parted in mind are struggling to figure out what the best answers are. unfortunately my daughter hillary isn't writing her thesis now or mom would have very little advice to give her. i also just returned a few minutes ago from a breakfast with german chancellor merkel who was in town to reach -- meet with present moment secretary hagel and others. it's a very good thing that she is here and no doubt the conversation will center on these comments. tough issues, tough guy. ready for the challenge.

educated at the university of nebraska on the g.i. bill and nebraska's record last season, football right it was 9-4 west of thing worse than the prior year's 11-3, ouch but a few touchdowns for u.s. policy right now would be a good thing. so to bring a smile to your face chuck we welcome you here and look forward to what you have to say. here is a scarf for the cornhuskers. go big red. please welcome chuck hagel the 24th secretary of defense. [applause] >> should i put that on for the presentation? jane, thank you. i'm always overwhelmed her company but now you have outdone yourself with the special nebraska cornhuskers scarf and

by the way the cornhuskers will have a better season this year. thank you. thank you jane and thanks to the wilson center for what you continue to do for our country and world affairs to bring thoughtful analysis and leadership to these tough issues the world is complicated as we all know. it's not getting any less complicated nor is it getting any less dangerous. your continued contributions and leadership as well as the substitution are very valuable and important parts to all of our efforts overall efforts to find peaceful, wise resolutions to these difficult problems. to my friends here who are on the panel that size good to see you and thanks for your continued contributions as well. and for those here who have been

in this business of analysis and thinking and writing for many years thank you. now is no time to stop. we are going to need everybody more than maybe ever in our lifetimes. as the world expands and opportunities expand and challenges expand. technology unprecedented change all over the world. but it is our time and we must not fail the world. as jane noted i have known jane many years. we worked together in congress, traveled together. always admiring her judgment and ability and sharp analysis of issues and in particular i have already said bayard and respected them and particularly appreciated her directness. those of you who know jane well and most of you do know that she

is very clear in what she believes and says it very plainly and that isn't altogether bad. i'd think if there was ever a time for plain talk in the world today respectful, respectful of each other and sovereignty in our interests in the world but we have to be clear with each other. jane has done that and i think we all appreciate that inner leaders said jane thank you and thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk about this issue. i know what your theme is this morning. it's particularly timely as well as valuable so thank you. the challenges facing nato today and calls for a need for this historic alliance. what we must do to strengthen it.

65 years ago after a long debate about america's role in the force -- post-war world -- at that at the house to witness president truman formally accepting and ratifying the north atlantic treaty. doing so present truman with prominent voices has been noted here this morning including those prestigious voices. those voices called for america and in kenyans words to relieve ourselves gradually of the basic responsibility for the security of western europe. instead general eisenhower arrived in paris in 1851 as the supreme allied commander fear. by 195311 u.s. air force ranks and five army divisions and 50 navy warships had followed. militaries of nato nations began working together. it began working to integrate

north american in the european strategy. america did not make commitments in search of monsters to destroy instead president truman joined the north atlantic treaty because he said he was convinced that nato would serve as a shield against aggression and the fear of aggression and thereby let us get on with the real business of government and society. truman joined the north atlantic treaty because he was as he put it a simple document that if it had existed in 1914 and in 1939 would have prevented two world wars. america was committed to nato because nato would help protect vital american interests by reinforcing the unity of transatlantic security. nato would ultimately protect security and prosperity here at home with this alliance. a truth that i believe endures to this day.

on the centennial of the start of world war i in the weeks before the 70s anniversary of allied landings at normandy russia's recent action in ukraine has reminded nato of its founding purpose. this prevented a clarifying moment for the transatlantic alliance. nato members must demonstrate that they are as committed to this alliance as its founding members were who built it 65 years ago. they must reaffirm the security guarantees at the heart of the alliance. they must reinvigorate the inartful joint planning exercises and capabilities that are its lifeblood. and they must reaffirm from the mediterranean to the baltics allies are a commitment to the security of every ally is resolute. the longest most complex operations in its history and

one that is strengthen the capability and the cohesion of the alliance. it also comes as we prepare for a nato summit this fall in wales which will be an opportunity to re-examine our nato militaries trained equipped and structured to meet new and enduring security challenges. after more than a decade focused on counterinsurgency and stability operations for nato must balance within renewed emphasis on territorial defense with its unique expeditionary capabilities because as we have seen threats to the alliance me to start -- neither start or stop at europe's doorstep. emerging threats and technologies mean fewer and fewer places are truly out of the area. balancing a full range of missions will require nato to have a full range of forces from high-end systems where deterrence to special operations

in rapid response capabilities. allied forces will must also be ready deployable incapable of ensuring our collective security. i said at the defense minister meeting early this year that we must focus not only on how much we spend but also on how we spend. ensuring we invest in the right interoperable capabilities for all nato missions. this will require the united states to continue prioritizing capabilities that can operate across the spectrum against the most sophisticated adversaries and it will also require nato nations, nato nations to prioritize similar investments in their own militaries. since the end of the cold war america's military spending has become increasingly disproportionate within the alliance. today america's gdp is smaller than the combined gdp sabar 27 nato allies. but america's defense spending

is three times our allies combined defense spending. over time this lopsided ergen threatens nato's integrity cohesion and capability and ultimately both european and transit linux security. many of nato smaller members of alleged to increase their defense investments and earlier this week at the pentagon i thank estonia renewed commitment and nato. the alliance cannot afford for europe's larger economies and most militarily capable allies not to do the same particularly has transatlantic economies grow stronger. we must see renewed financial commitments from all nato members. rush is actions and ukraine have made nato's guy you abundantly clear. i know from my frequent conversations with nato defense

ministers that they do not need any convincing on this point. talking amongst ourselves is no longer good enough. having participated in the nato defense ministerial over the last year and a half and having met with all of my nato counterparts i have, way recognizing that the challenge is building support, the real challenge, the real challenge is building support for defense investment across there governance not just our defense ministries. defense investment must be discussed in a broader context of member nations overall fiscal challenges and priorities. today i'm there for calling for the inclusion of finance ministers are senior budget officials at a nato ministerial focus on defense investment. this would allow them to receive detailed briefings from alliance leaders and the challenges we all face. leaders across her government must understand that the

consequences of current trends reduce defense spending and help them make up the fiscal impasse. the united states must have strong committed and capable allies. this year's quadrennial defense review makes this very clear. going for the department of defense will not only seek but increasingly rely on closer collaboration with our allies and in ways that will influence you a strategic planning and future investment. for decades from the early days of the cold war american defense secretaries have called on european allies to ramp up their defense investment and in recent years one of the biggest obstacles to alliance investment has been a sense that the end of the cold war ushered in the end to history, and into in security at least in europe. and aggression by nationstates.

russia's actions in ukraine shattered that myth and ushered in embracing new realities. even the united and deeply interconnected europe still lives in a dangerous world. while we must continue to build a more peaceful prosperous global order there is snow postmodern refuge for me into the threat of military force. we cannot take for granted even in europe the pieces underwritten by the deterrent of military power. in the short-term the transatlantic alliance has responded to russian actions and continued resolve but over the long term we should expect russia to test our alliances purpose and stamina and commitment. future generations will note whether at this moment at this moment of challenge we summon the will to invest in our alliance.

we must not squander this opportunity over shrink from this challenge. we will be judged harshly by history. by future generations if we do. nato should also find creative ways, creative ways to find nations around the world to help them adapt to collective security to rapidly evolving global strategic landscapes. collective security is not only the anchor to the transatlantic alliance, it's also a model for merging the security of stations around the from africa to the persian gulf. i say this having just contained a form of asean defense ministers last month having called for a corporation no defense minister of this year. these institutions bring all of our people all of our interest in all of our economies closer together. serving as anchors for stability security and prosperity.

strengthening these regional security institutions must be as centerpiece for america's defense policies as we continue investing in nato. as these institutions develop their own unique security arrangements they stand to benefit by learning from nato's unmatched interoperability and command-and-control systems. there can be no transatlantic asperity absent security but we must also keep in mind investing in our lives and our collective security means more than just investing in our militaries alone. it means the united states and europe must partner together over the long term to bolster europe's energy security and blunt rushes course of energy policies. by the end of the decade europe is positioned to reduce its natural gas imports by more than 25%. u.s. department of energy has conditionally approved export permits for american liquefied natural gas that ad up to more

than half of europe's gas imports from russia. it means deepening our economic ties and trade initiatives like the transatlantic trade investment partnership and that means continuing to exercise global leadership and shared values like human rights and the rule of law. but may conclude by reflecting on the historic decision 20 years ago to move toward nato enlargement which i know as jane has noted is the a focus of this congress. some argue that nato enlargement invited russian aggression. critics called it a tragic mistake and an irresponsible bluff. some still do. the historical record now speaks clearly for itself and it makes clear that nato has sought partnership, not conflict, with

russia and that enlargement has contributed to stability and security. no one wanted to replace europe's cold war dividing line with the new one

nato enlargement did not invite russian aggression. instead, it is affirmed the independence and democratic identity of new members. it did not crisis then or now. instead settled old disputes and advanced regional stability. promote freedom and free markets and is advance the cause of peace. that is why nato still holds the door open for aspiring members and why it must maintain partnerships with nations around the world. consider the alternative, a

world without nato and the assurances of collective security. that world would have risked the enormous political and economic progress made within and between aspiring members. it would have risked a precarious european security environment in which today's central and eastern european allies would be torn between europe and russia. it would have risked in security reverberating deep into the heart of western europe and ultimately it would have rest a europe less free. thanks to american leadership and thanks to some of the distinguished leaders here today as we will hear from this morning that is not the world we live in. yes the world is imperfect, yes we have challenges but we must reflect on what we have done as we prepare and build platforms and institutions to take on these new threats of the early

21st century. in 1997 i sat set on the senate floor that america europe and russia could all benefit if the nations of central and eastern europe are anchored in the security nato can offer. today the transatlantic alliance anchors global security. offers the possible antidote to the aggression and fear of aggression president truman warned against in 1949. freedom stability and prosperity and well in door well into this century. in the next century but only if nations on both sides of the atlantic see this clarifying moment. two gears of 19 days after general eisenhower arrived in paris as a supreme allied commander in europe he was inaugurated as the 34th president of the united states. president eisenhower was as war weary as the american public and

people all over the world. he had written to his wife mimi in his words that he constantly wondered how civilization can stand war at all. he would lie awake at night smoking cigarettes and the knowledge privately that there was not one part of his body that did not panic but in his first formal address as president ike insisted that america had to remain engaged in the world. he said no nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effect if cooperation with fellow nations. in 1957 president eisenhower returned to paris where in his address to the first nato summit of heads of state he connected america's transatlantic commitments to vitality of our factories and mills and shipping of our trading centers are farms in our little businesses and to

our rights at home, our rights to produce freely. freely think freely and pray freely. those who doubt the values of america's commitment several abroad should read -- recall that command because the impressive piece of prosperity we enjoy today is heartwarming and we must remember it is always perishable. as ike like to say it takes a lot of hard work and sacrifice by a lot of people to bring about the inevitable. without deep engagement in the world america would face more conflict, not less and on the terms of our adversaries not on our own terms. that is why america's commitment to its allies in europe and around the world is not a burden it's not a luxury but it is a necessity and it must be

unwavering. thank you. [applause] thank you. steve thank you very much secretary hagel for it remarks that would inspire the cornhuskers and the entire world. we will now take a few questions from the audience. please identify yourself and i suggest that you stand up so we know where you are when you are speaking. questions? way in the back. >> hi.

i agree with congresswoman harman on your inspirational speech. i want to know especially in light of enlargement in the balkans do you predict any sort of efforts being done to resolve those old disputes similar to the macedonia greece dispute which has prevented the country from joining nato over the last six years? thank you. >> well as you all know, that is an area of the world that is working its way through difficult historical differences you know i think everyone here, much about those differences. i think progress is being made in those countries as they sort through those differences peacefully. and perfect. it's a challenge. it's a matter of continuing to make progress, build

functioning, free democratic institutions, respect all the people regard as of their religion or their ethnic backgrounds created i think a lot of progress is being made. we have seen that i think in the definition of boundaries in nation-states as they continue to work toward democracy and self-government in a responsible way so i'm encouraged by that. i do think that nato, the european union and those alliances have helped that. i referenced generally, not specific way, to the balkans but generally what i think nato has meant in my comments regarding we have fostered nato alliance in the european union. we foster that coming together in building on common interests. not our differences but build platforms.

where do we agree and work agree and where can we benefit? we have differences and we have got that but we will never peacefully resolve differences without building institutions and platforms of common interest. it's the whole point behind the coalitions of common interest built after world war ii weather was denied nations or nato or imf or the bank that came out of bretton woods woods. all of that was about common interests so we didn't revert back into a third world war as the third one would probably go a long way in destroying mankind with his sophistication of weapons. i'm encouraged, more to do but i'm encouraged. >> more questions? and it won up front are several in the back. how about in the very back. i can't really see what you are wearing so i can describe you. >> i'm a russian professor living here and i have a

question about the historic relationship with nato and russia. 69 years ago in may of 1945 our countries together were celebrating victory against prussianism. now america changed as russia's enemy. what happened over these years? thank you. >> well, i think you might want to address that question to some others as to what happened but i would answer your question this way. i said in my speech that during the process of nato enlargement and many of the strong arguments that were made and i use this as just one example to answer your large question of what happened.

all different views about nato enlargement represented. i was in the senate at the time and jane was in the house. we spent a lot of time on this issue. we were all part of the debate at the time weather was in congress or outside. there was a tremendous amount of focus and effort on this examining all points of view. what were the consequences of enlargement and should we do it? russia's response as a sort have been noted here but in my opinion the right decisions were made to go forward on enlargement. during that process there was a reaching out from nato members to russia. i referenced a couple of the specific target ships for peace. we have the russia nato meetings and that was done specifically to recognize that russia would

i'm sure think that somehow this was a threat to them, their security and unique gove -- need not go back in history to far to get all that. i was not at the center of every decision but i was in the senate at the time on the foreign relations committee at the time, traveled a lot on this issue and i know our government at the time and our allies at the time did reach out to the russians to try to reassure them that this was about common interests, not about our differences. i think we have had in the last 20 years especially since the implosion of the soviet union we have had ups and downs in the russia-u.s. relationship in the nato-russia relationship that we have had periods of cooperation as well. we do a lot of things with the russians and we have

differences. obvious to what has happened in the ukraine as i made clear at least in my opinion and my speech, that was not nato aggression that brought this action songs. and so we will continue to do what civilized nations must do, protect their own interest but also to find wise diplomatic smart resolutions to differences. i think my remarks are pretty clear on where i think the responsibility lies in this particular case. >> last question in front. >> mr. secretary i am the police ambassador to portugal on the other side of the atlantic. i very much appreciated your comments.

.. we both remember howard when did this time. this is something that created a completely knew opportunities. it was meant to be that a guarantee of our security, but it was also -- and until today the public opinion post

indicated about 60% of folks believe that it was made of that would support and defend. however, believe that what has changed is that the very concept in which nato was operating loss for many years i would say this is a concept of the prisoner's dilemma, presuming you have two people that are sort of lock in the same tale. whether they will cooperate and not, they would have their result. no of leave the question is the one of those entities is no longer in the same jail. to believe that this requires completely new strategic concepts. my question is how would you address it. [laughter] >> well, it's a very simple question. you deserve a simple answer.

i noted that my remarks that we have sphere the nato summit of heads of state coming up in september. this obviously your question in everything that revolves around it will be much the centerpiece of the indigent for obvious reasons. i referenced on a number of occasions in more general terms of my remarks about strategic shifts in allies and commitments and not only financial commitments but other strategic issues, and on the chin specifically the relationship with russia. always is when they have to be reexamined. institutions that don't ever stay status quo. yesterday is gone.

we each get a day older. so on and so on. institutions of this i'm white. institutions must remain relevant to the challenge which is much of the theme of my point, as you all know. irrelevance to address the challenges there are before us and we anticipate will be in the future. that is constantly a reassessment of strategic interest assets, the strength of alliances, the strength of all the nation's assets, not just the military. we can separate stability and security from prosperity. you can't have one without the other. and so, yes, we are going to go through the process. i think in the world is so hair trigger as we are living in today where there's very little margin for real bad decisions, not like it was 20 years ago,

certainly for your 50 years ago. so we have to be very wise, stay from but was and how we implement our tremendous powers thinking not just about today and not tomorrow but how this all works out, where we want to end of little economic anything. that is going to require more and more alliance relationships. every nation will respond in its own self-interest. that's predictable. in no nation should be held captive to the institution they belong to. edna every nation must protect its own interest. those interests are now wide and varied where they include the true interest which i referenced wise leaders on both sides of the it lifted after world war to understand that. in perfect, flaunt, can solve

the problems. with examine the record here. in a expand this out. we haven't done too badly. there is not a world war three. i think on balance their more nations with more possibilities for freedom and trade. still want to do, absolutely. as imperfect and what does the mistakes we make, on balance, we should not dismiss once going right and how we get the right things. the costs of evaluation of strategic interest. we very much appreciate what your country is doing and continues to do. frank carlucci is a very dear

friend. i have often said that frank things that i exaggerate. former senators every century. an usher and portugal would in turn the in that immediate time the way it did in 1980 and 1979. he's amazing and a great public servants. thank you. >> please join me in thanking secretary hazel. [applause] >> the next part of the program begins right now. >> as jane harman and secretary he go in raided this morning, i will just remind you that we are here to look at really 20 years

ago this fateful decision was taken in january of '94 which was at a nato summit to offer something called the partnership for peace to russia, warsaw pact states, anyone that would like to have a closer relationship. as everybody on this panel who are will introduce in a minute at the time poland and czechoslovakia, the czech republic and hungary were clamoring for new memberships. this was a compromise. sure enough beginning in 97 native started off the. the day of course it is 12 country's larger than it was given the 60 members of was of the time. this obviously sticks and% bid from. in his four hour telethon, i don't know how many of you watched this may talk about repeatedly. we were promised that after

germany's unification than it would not spread eastward. a started expanding and incorporating former warsaw treaty countries. we heard in response this does not concern you. nations and countries have the war to choose the way of ensuring the security. that's true, but it's also true when the infrastructure of the military bloc approaches our borders we have grounds for apprehension question. no one could deny as this right. he went on to say have been no and western leaders have long many times tsongas, made decisions behind the back of price wars and accomplished fact some today we want to examine whether in natal and the newly expanded nato alliance is now reaping the whirlwind of that decision and the ukraine. the of a very distinguished panel of people here today who

are essentially present at the creation in one way or another. you will have biographies, but briefly the former foreign minister and actually first prime minister and then foreign minister of poland, going to make the your first name. on my immediate left, prime minister of poland in 97 when, in fact, poland was first invited to join nato. annexes on draco room, the foreign minister in the waning days of the soviet union an olive from 901 through 96 and was deeply involved in this entire drama. wolfgang, many of you knew and gas and ambassador to the united states for many years in the

2000's, but he was on the policy planning staff. as i recall during the indication of native discussions he was deeply involved in all of this. cheryl cross who is now director of the asman ski center at st. edward's university in austin, big for 20 years you were at the george marshall european center for security studies in germany. a close student of everything from the partnership for peace to russian and western relations. finally of very familiar face to many of us who covered the cosimo or. mr. scherer has been at beta for many, many years an island of important positions driven director policy planning what is best known perhaps as an ever-present spokesman for nato explaining what they were doing

throughout the 90's and that early 2000's. analysts aren't with the ambassador. let's go back to this painful decision in january of '94 to begin this partnership for peace. was it frawley, as many critics suggested, as ms. harbin said or has what has happened in the ukraine proof that it was necessary. >> thank you for bringing this together. it's a wonderful opportunity. my view is that if one imagined a world in which we had not taken these decisions in '94 and and going forward a few years

the first round of nato enlargement or poland was invited into other countries and subsequently if we had not done that what kind of curious could possibly exist in europe today on new lines of division. the very idea hollins how could we resist the interests of newly independent countries like our immediate neighbor to the east was, can we be part of your club ? if we wanted to create a overtime and durable. united. think it was with of alternative

the question was, did we use the right method, communicate perfectly with the russian hot. that is a big question. i believe the decision in '94 and subsequently 97 was absolutely without a turning point. >> minister, how was the scene in russia? how would you answer that question marks are would answer it today as i answered at that time. basically and would like to answer also the question of one of my russian combat truants about d-day because it's actually celebrated in russia on may 9th. in the west it's usually made it

so what happened after that? once a part of the answer to your questions and participated in the aggression in the 1939 together with hitler when the system in russia remained, and that was the course of the cold war in proper terms, not in technical terms. and then what happens today, the main problem is the pressure has not yet parted with this past.

stalin is referred to in government groups or endorsed for children as and able the operator, as an able manager. could you believe what happened in germany with hitler was referred to as an able manager. so that is basically what happens. that is basically at the root of the problem today with the ukraine establishment is still there. gene and what happened in 1994? that russia believed that the ruling class, those who

benefited the most from privatized actions and the results of the democratic revolution of 1991 commander had not seen in humans and the so-called white house when we were standing in against the coup on august 1991. but they were quick to privatize actually the cash flow from the auto and gas exports which is still the base of the economy. and then they mostly moved with nato's own themselves. it's amazing. the russian elite today is mostly based in the nation's own that's the answer to the questions. if native poland extended his country russian elites, but left

russia supposed soviet propaganda with is what we're facing today. >> and let me ask. >> and sarkozy. it's very painful for me is a these things. >> at the time in 94 was poland's bitterly disappointed or did you know is that this was going to be a backdoor way toward into eventual pathways to a nato and even though at the time it was painted in a different fashion? >> on be very frank. to explain that that me tell you the reasons accreting applied data. that happened in december 91. for the first time members of the polish government began

talking about nato in february to march of '92. a first there was a problem. we were a threat of potential instability. later that was confirmed by the way the political problem was solved with the use of tanks and shelling. we were weakness and instability in russia. eventual consequences of potential conflict that already erupted in many places. that is what we were interested in fast joining nato. but i can also said it that, of course, there was a lot of negative in our way of thinking because we believe that was almost 100 percent political

decision. we did not understand that your states have much we had to do ourselves, or make a personal, and such. so in 94 we reacted with disappointment. that was the kind of take. not fair. but from my perspective it was a wise decision. we really had the duologue, which we later on found. we did our homework pretty well. that is why we could then becomes a reliable. >> let me go to jimmy because you were there at the time. inside the in a council was it seemed as many americans political figures portrayed it as something that would afford

independence and the democratic identity for new members, helped them solve the disputes and door was of still and against it possibly research russian. >> well, thank you very much for allowing me to appear through the magic of the bbc. the first thing to say is that nato did not receive an enlargement which happened only in 1999 several years out to the end of the cold war. put in place a comprehensive or euro and led to a security system which included russia. for example, you mentioned that we did not try to see nato enlargement as nato expanding

eastward. very much in responding to the legitimate aspirations of european countries to be part of the euro atlantic family that had worked so well for us for so many years. why would we refuse that? does the prime minister referred to, countries themselves have demonstrated, well received protection. they failed to share the burdens of. for example, by the time that nato became deeply involved in and out of area operations will be on the tradition of article five defense and bosnia and peacekeeping. the country's have to understand that it was a two-way street that would receive protection but also had to contribute to

nato extending their protections as well as the second thing which we have to remember. before nato alliance or participated very actively in this or of the secretary-general's on that negotiated for months, the russian foreign minister of the bitter russian action medically of laboratory and large they were seeing these numbers. closer to nato and giving russia a seat at the table. serve but to the out a framework in. once this was in place we could go forward with nato. what was it about? it was all about tonnages century and even 19th century

your. the the sovereignty and foreign policy independence of large countries. challenger determines your place in history, what was bound to be repeated. one of the reasons why native canada was because some of the earlier antaeus for confederation in europe struck people as going back to the loosely of nations where everybody happy. quite rightly there was a natural rebellion politically against that kind of idea. the point i want to make is that we this before. bringing russia and as we went along.

>> you reserving all of the lessons are, these people. how much snow was given to potential blow back? in other words, from your observation point was there really a sincere desire or at least intention that of pressure involved in a certain line that it could become part of this community? >> i think it is a consistent record on the part of nato with a close visit of the secretary general of for you and the collapse of the soviet union to reach out in a spirit of cooperation which is what made the case. they have the partnership. the permanent joint council negotiating and in a natal russia, some. i think it is sincere and at

your of security requires corporations hands and just returned from almost a decade of the other side of the atlantic working, and i can't imagine what the circumstances which have been in terms of the practical support without the institutions of the european union, but at the same time we have to recognize that it's reasonable to be concerned about nato's movement increasingly to russian borders some. no matter how many insurance isn't many just don't accept ana

. has been consistent opposition. i think the challenge remains given the vast area, security and the importance of the security relationship that we have to anticipate. the russians have talked about consistently that they draw this line and we can go only so far. they are nervous and concerned. it is too bad it has turned into a contest hidden hive. really the best and wisest strategy for their long chair access and democratization would be to pursue ties with russia and.

>> you wanted to jump inhere. >> i would just like and be a german jew. when some of us in a german government who were supposed to move forward and natal in large, inviting the first group of countries that chancellor kohl that the time and hesitated. i remember a meeting where he said don't do anything. and it came back and said it will have to do this in and a range. if it can be a pillar, but has to be and equally substantial.

the relationship h'm. so that's the way to keep everybody maybe not happy with a tolerant and to deal with the concerns that you share when which certainly were legitimate. the second observation, when a look at the debate are having been seen to be falling behind her when tsongas would it make sense to invite russia to make later on to over 13 years ago

that question. now obviously the russian response was the and not really interested to have hawks since some of the ideas hidden that were followed bifurcate simply were not ahead designed to be susceptible says. it was just not doing the work he. we have reached a point where

hopefully once the dust to settle we will need to take a sharp look again at how we can overtime concerts a european that is good for us but also a okay for russia. >> was their feeling that the west was taking a vantage? in the airline 90's the economy when, the internal political situation was quite chaotic. is the a feeling that the west was moving ahead? >> it is difficult to speak with

her in the country as a whole much more unfortunately. if and those who were in government like myself as a way of democratic movement in russia there was a rainbow of opporunity for russians are really part. it was revolutionary. and fundamental change from basically stalin's system to a democratic system. this opportunity, nato is very much in the center of the problem. [inaudible question] agree more that we wanted to use

which closed very soon, not because of nato. it closed basically because of domestic tendencies in russia that our government the problem

of other countries in eastern europe since including george. and nuclear superpower. it's still unclear. we're still targeted by russian missiles be. that's very important point. >> my own system. [laughter] >> just to be sure. so it's