capabilities package in chicago. oh, i know i'm running out of time. let me go through a couple other things quickly and cover others in the q&a. smart defense. ian mentioned the alliance coming forward with a group of 20 pooling and sharing initiatives. here smart defense is essentially trying to do more with less, and this is a concept that's been tried by groups of allies either who have opted because they're in the same geographic area or in the same kind of weight class from a capabilities perspective to join hands and develop a capability that could be utilized by the alliance. there are some very positive success stories where this has been tried in the past. some have not been as successful, but i think the point of this summit is to try and get more of those to take root and push countries to step forward and offer to lead specific capability initiatives in areas that have been identified at critical, such as helicopter maintenance, maritime

patrol, aircraft, a very long list. munitions, storage of munitions. a gap highlighted, in fact, in the libya operation as well. here the u.s. is going to step forward and lead three of these initiatives. it's going to participate in six of them. we believe. and on top of it, one of the other smart defense initiatives rolled out in chicago is baltic air policing, ongoing, but a new commitment to extend that beyond 2018 and on top of it we expect the baltic nations to come forward with additional offers for host nation support. the last thing i'll mention is training. i think in this era of defense cuts and where we're seeing allies eliminate entire capability elements, it's absolutely critical that the alliance put a very heavy emphasis on training to keep skill sets alive, assuming that there may be brighter days ahead. an example of this would be the

u.s. and the u.k. coming together to sign a carrier cooperation agreement. most recently because the u.s., the u.k. will not have access and will not have carriers at its disposal but will continue to ensure that its military a trained and will be working with the united states in that particular area. many other examples of this exist and i think the hope is that as we identify this brigade in the united states that will be rotating battalions to europe. possibly twice annually, although we're still working on the frequency of that, that will also be a way to enhance training in the alliance answer a new u.s. contribution to the nato response force and, again, we can get into those details in the q&a. i fear i've spoken too long already. i'm going to leave it at that and turn it over to the next person on the panel. thank you. >> julianne, thank you very much for rapidly going through what is a packed agenda, when you,

start to look at these issues and it's very difficult in the time you have. you were very generous i think as well to describe britain's future defense struggles as a bell curve and i think within the u.k. they've been described as kind of black hole around $35 billion worth of defense expenditures which have been pushed into the future, because the country can't afford to pay for it now. we're looking at the kind of carrier programs and try to replace them. but these are challenges for the future. i'm going to pass the mark on to the second speaker. >> thank you. >> thank you, julianne. this is really very good. first, i'd like to say that in real life snow white would be dead without the dwarfs. and i'd also like to just say that in the real story, i

don't -- i don't remember a grim threatening with -- with snow white in that the dwarfs are supposed to be scared of what -- what snow white said. and i say this in a not so cynical way. i think it's -- we europeans, we get the message. we got it. we understand. i think we should -- we should move on from the gates message politically. i don't think it's helpful any longer. i think we're past that. i think it's important that we understand that both sides got it. in is a basic irkssue here and think that's the root of the problem. it's not just about the financial situation of europe. it's not just about the economy. it's not just about the willingness. there's a deep division between

europeans and the united states in the perception of threat. what the real threat is. what is the threat of the 21st century? what is that we are really building our capabilities for? and i -- i seriously hope that sooner or later -- look. this summit will be important. it will be an important milestone, but it will not be historic in the sense that this will be the big summit that solves everything and that's okay. not all summits have to be like that. i think there are summits that just have to push the ball, or kick the ball

we have a problem keeping to the agreed percentage of spending. but -- but honestly, that's only -- that's -- that's not the whole point. i think it's also important that we are very clear about the -- the other circumstances. like, for example, the -- the -- the losing of appetite by our societies to go to war, or take up military actions. now, the good news is, so far when it was really necessary, the solidarity with the united states was there. so let's face it. more countries are part of the coalition weren't part of the coalition of the willing and are

part of isaf than countries that seriously believe that afghanistan is a, is a major threat, or we're supposed to be there. we do it. many do it, because it's so important for the transatlantic solidarity. that should not be forgotten, which is a good news, because it's the -- the message is that, yes, the transatlantic relationship still matters. now, i wish snow white had not pivoted to the kingdom, the other kingdom. i just want to say this, because it has caused, caused a lot of confusion among the du'a-of-s. dwarfs. and i think we've otherer that. we're past that. we get it now. it's not as bad and it's not as serious as we first thought, and we europeans should stop whining about you know what is -- you know, the u.s. pivot. it's fine. it's -- it's probably more asia and not less europe and if i

could recommend top my friends in the united states the way to present it in the future is -- is more asia, not less europe. what i'd also just like to say is that, i guess libya was good news. libya was good news, because first the europeans really took action. second, of course, there is a lot of, a lot of discussion about, you know, how good were the europeans? well, look at it this way. the europeans could have done it with -- without the united states, just not as easily. not as fast. not as -- not with the losses that we suffered, but it would have been much more difficult. stow was good. it was great the united states stepped in. and, of course, it points to a lot of the shoresages and shortcomings that we have in our capabilities. but there was something, there was another element that you should not, you know -- you should clearly see.

some of the partners of nato took greater responsibility than some of the actual members. now, that's an interesting new development. i guess the participation of sweden, which was seamless, which was important, is a very, very important point in case, and i would also like to say that there are other partners suddenly that we see who are actually able to contribute more than some of the actual member, like finland. so what i'd like to hope is that at the summit there will be sum discussion -- some discussion about the future of the partnership, which is a new element, if you want, reinforced pillar of what the alliance can stand for and can look like in the future. there is one question here, you know. the question -- you know, will

it help close the gap? should nato move towards a human security approach contributing to the protection of every individual human being and not just focus on the defensive territorial borders? i think, honestly, i think it's the wrong question to ask. i don't think nato will take upon itself responsibilities that are basically the responsibilities of the -- the civilian forces. this brings me to my final point. don't underestimate the reserves and the possibilities and the opportunities we have in enhancing eu nato cooperation. eu more and more civilian crisis management issues will be the task of the transatlantic community. and the european union has these capabilities. i just hope we get some of the internal internal obstacles that we have in nato and the internal

obstacles we have within the eu politically, to get this out of the way see that the eu nato cooperation can move ahead. in the -- in conclusion, i'd like to just say that i do believe that a renewed nato, a reinvented nato, can still be the institution of choice of the transatlantic relationship for the 21st century. >> thank you very much for that, an dras. i'm going to regreet using the snow white metaphor towards the end of this. >> that was great. >> thanks. >> well, first, let me lay my cards out on the table and say that i don't seep think as gloomy news whatsoever. i've been pushing for cuts in military spending in the united states and throughout europe for a decade or more. so i see it all as great news.

i just want to be clear about that. because i see the problem here, and folks coming from europe, from asia, they come to the united states, and they realize that immediately when they sgee a restaurant and they see the size of the entrees that are served here. and they realize we have a problem with portion control. here in the united states. and there's no surprise that we have a problem with obesity, and it's not just the quantity of food that we eat. it's the quality of food that we eat. we eat a lot of junk food, and you're thinking right now, maybe i've come to the wrong conference by accident, but, no. there is, i think, a strong connection between our attitudes towards food and our attitudes towards the pentagon. the pentagon has gone on an enormous eating spree over the last decade and has grown enormous, and this conversation about, what is it for, has not taken place. yes, we haven't had a conversation among nato allies about why we should be cutting this or cutting that, but we

also haven't had a conversation about why we ever spent this money in the first place. that, i think, is the question that we should be, the conversation we should be having. right now here in the united states we have basically three approaches to the obesity problem facing nato. and u.s. spending. and the three options are basically this -- and they were alluded to in the last panel and i'll go over them very briefly. essentially, republicans laid out various options for eating more. in other words, the house has offered a proposal to add $4 billion on top of what the pentagon has asked for. okay. we know that this proposal coming from the house republicans is not going to go anywhere in the senate, but it's a good indication of where the political tenor is and what the republican party believes the solution that faces us. us a an alternative for sequestration.

i won't dough into that. look at mitt romney's campaign. he has basically said we should spend, an estimate, as much as $2.1 trillion more over the next decade than what the obama administration, for instance, has laid out. $2.1 trillion more. i want to emphasize that. more. not cutting. more. okay. so obama administration. what's the obama administration's proposal? more or less, stay the course. all the talk of the obama administration making significant countries in the military? not really. if we look over the next ten year, yes. 500, 600 billion dollar, but spread over ten years and given inflation and so on, it's really not all that much in terms of cuts. what are -- what's the third option? the third option of course is the gastric bypass. the fact that pentagon can't be expected to deal with this problem by itself. there must be much more radical surgical solutions to this

problem. it's not just a partisan thing. of course, you know, tom colburn, republican, rather conservative republican came out way proposal over the summer to cut $1 trillion in military spending. which i thought was quite remarkable. we, at the institute for policy studies where i work put out the unified security budget where we come up with a detailed list of not only the cuts that we think can be made without endangering the security. we have to repeat that. without endangering the security of the united states, but also where the money could be usefully applied to promote non-military approaches, to resolving conflicts. beefing up, in other words, various existing structures within the state department and other parts of the u.s. government. and, of course, i haven't heard anybody refer to the poll done recently, just a week ago,

maybe, but a project for international policy, attitudes in several, and two other polling firms that showed where u.s. public's attitudes are about cutting military spending and they found, in fact, the u.s. public, republicans and democrats ay like, are far more radical in terms of what they support in terms of military cuts. an average of 18%. immediate. annual cut, in military spending. so what are the implications of this on nato? the debate here in the united states. the possibility of perhaps more significant cuts in u.s. military spend pg again, i want to emphasize, we're not seeing that immediately with what the obama administration is proposing, but if sequestration goes for and we're forced to do it, then we might see some significant cuts. what would be the implications? first of all, hooray! the cold war is over. finally nato would have to face the fact that it doesn't need

these weapons systems designed to fight a cold war. tactical nuclear weapons. do we really need those? the danish submarines i think you referred to. dop we really need those? those brigades we're planning on removing from europe. did we really need those? do we need all of those u.s. military bases in europe which were designed for the cold war? nato would be forced to face a reality that the cold war ended 20 years ago. second, that we would see, i would hope, and there was discussion of this already at this conference, an emphasis on non-military solutions. i was saddened a way long time ago, 20 years ago when the csce, when it was the csce was radically deemphasized in favor of nato in the wake of the collapse of the soviet union and

communism. that was a -- i'm -- i'm regretful today as i was then a, an option, i'm sorry that we didn't pursue, beefing up the, what became the osce. and the previous panel, one of the presenters talked about why the eu in comparison to nato wasn't particularly effective. well, look at the budgets. i mean, geez. you know, if the eu or the osce had as much money available as nato, perhaps they could be a little bit more effective with some of the things they were talking about. anti-piracy, et cetera. squeezing out waste and redundancy, i'd love to see someone like mitt romney in his capacity at bain capital take an ax to the waste and redundancien in nato. we see it in the private sector. we see it in, you know, when people like mitt romney go to corporations. why don't we see it at nato? i think this kind of financial environment is perfect for such a -- an ax wielder of that

nature to go at nato in terms of waste and redundancy. it could potentially reduce russian anxiety, if we are spending less in terms of nato overall. that might be a good way of sitting down at the take with the russians and saying, hey, you don't have to worry about us so much as we're purchase sewering missi seweri sewering pursuing nuclear but taking a serious position reducing spending within nato. finally, there are two aspects that mitigate or militate against this happy news, from my point of view happy news. not necessarily happy news for everybody here. one is that we have a tendency to export our problems. we export our obesity problem by selling corn syrup all over the world. no surprise. we sell our arms as well, and

over the last two years the obama administration has begun ton re-evaluate our export control regulations to facilitate greater arms exports. why? the reasons are obvious. if our military contractors have fewer opportunities to get pentagon contracts, well, we will, >> i e., the obama administration will do whatever it can to facilitate the sale of arms overseas to satisfy the bottom line of those military contractors. number two, of course, is, and what we've talked about, burden sharing. i was surprised to see that canada was on the list of nato allies that were chastised by eve oh daalder for not pulling their weight. he said kand dap was part of the maexerting unfair burden on those who spend resources.

canada is the sixth largest spender within nate eand its military budget went froms 15ds billion to $25 billion between 2507b 5 and 2011. sheer a country actually increasing, until recently, increasing military spending and it, too, has come under attack. so the pressure by the united states on our nato allies to increase military spending i think is a countervailing pressure here, unfortunately. now, again, i'd like to have, i'd like to promote this idea of having a conversation, not just about sharing capabilities but fundamentally about why we are maintaining these capabilities, upgrading these capabilities or even creating new capabilities. i think we have to have that conversation within nato. ultimately, and i'll end here, ultimately it is easier to diet together, and i think that the united states and its nato allies, and i won't refer to snow white here, but ultimately,

we have to work together to coordinate these reductions rather than spending so much energy to try to figure out why we have to keep spending at the unsustainable rate that we've been spending over the last decade. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. i can't help myself going back to the snow white. i have a 7-year-old at the moment. so i'm obsessed by disney movies. so thank you for setting out that diet regime for snow white so she can xbeez tsqueeze into the wedding address later on in the show. one of the feud european countries that bucked the trend of low military spending in europe has been on a consistent basis, that been greece which is, i guess, for the last 20 years spent around 4% of gdp on defense where as the echt u averages around 1.7. so adjusting to what was said, the implications of some of them. >> i should correct you.

it would be 5%. going back to 2.2% nonetheless we did pay our debt to nato this year. here is the good news. the good news is that i'm the last speaker. and the bad news is that i know that i've got to be short for not take too much of your time. allow me first of all to thank ian davis here, nato watch, paul ingram from basic, and anne and chris for the valuable contribution. this is an excellent conference. as president of the international, i thank you for getting us onboard. now, another good news is that in order to watch the snow white or the seven dwarfs you need a writer. somebody has to write about the story. so the story is that smart defense is a new story that is coming up. now the problem is smart defense not only reflects the united states cutting off the budgets

but actually reflects more, i would say also, the european union perception we need to cuss back basically on everything and my country and myself, we have this small problem than is called financial crisis now. so we need to cut basically on everything. imagine the defense, measure of defense of greece, just cut back in one day say 100 million just like that. now, the problem is that nato is still -- nato should and still is valid and it will be valid for the future to come. for us in southeastern europe, nato is the only credible security organization in the europe atlantic region, and nato's fundamental question in this case i speak about, for myself, is that nato has decided what it wants to do with its future, and it will go along. so i wouldn't believe i would actually say that in the u.s., but i will have to dismiss any of those, you know, opinions

that say that basically what is nato capable for what do we need nato for and so on and so forth. the cold war is over. yeah. nato knows the cold war is over and proceeded to the next step, and that next step is called emerging challenges, security threats and so orch and so forth. the 2001 terrorist acts in the u.s. were nothing about cold war. they were all about new modern age, symmetrical warfare and i think nato is concentrating more on that. the problem is that in order to have a collective organization of 28 member states, working together, is the issue of capabilities and interpretability not only in forces but also of civilian that works inside nato. at the same time, this reflects, also, the governments of the way they negotiate and they portray their policy orientations. now, nato itself is a super

national eit entity that requir for governments to be open, burden sharing and offer their capabilities as also their capacities, they're human capital and finances. now, greece has been able to do everything except human capital. finally enough, we've been giving a lot of money at nato. offering a lot. we are leading the nrf for 2012. nobody mentioned the nrf, but this is basically the, nato's battalion if i may use your word of battalion. this is nato's battalion that should be engaged to at some point but nonetheless is not engaged yet. so the question is for the upcoming nato chicago summit, what do we do with the interpretability, with capacity building, capabilities and so on and so forth. so we called that smart defense. the secretary-general called it smart defense. i would like to use the sharing idea, i totally agree with smart dwhaens should be negotiated and

i believe my country should take the step up. we need to solve our issues whether this is a regional issues or not a regional issues for us the fiscal crisis is also political crisis that we resolve issues and move forward. we take the step and we move along. and we move ahead. so i will not take too much, too long of your time, but i will divide my speech into three parts. the first part is that i will explain how i understand or how we understand in southeastern europe smart defense. what is smart defense in southeastern europe engaging in their expertise and what is to expect to the chicago summit from our leaders? now, if i can give a title to my whole speech i would give it as "creating a smart defense engaging a smart alliance." now, in international connected environment that is full of challenges and threats, in times of austerity and historical political changes, smart defense in essence of and for alliance

unit hey come forth. it is expected to be officially negotiated and presented to the upcoming summit this week in chicago, the chicago summit of the 20 heads of state and government. smart defense is a new security culture kpree hep culture comprehension. the same i do academic or in my own institute pap new way of thinking, generating modern defense capabilities and new ideas. it's about the future of nate other as an alliance not only in conceptual framework actually tactical and strategic, all about the encouragement of corporate defense and all about maintaining military capabilities but also enhancing military capabilities with low, as low as possible financial costs and human -- according to the concept, nato is moving forward on the 21st century challenges required agile forces, compatible forces also

deployable forces. i remind you greece has forces but we're not deployable forces. we're static forces. nato needs these forces and we need to have smart budgets directed funds for capacity building and planning effectiveness. we also need to be operationally viable with minimum budgets possible and enhanced technology, minimum human cost and time, specific time frame in operations, in and out. smart defense is all about renewing operational and tact tactical effectiveness and alliance coordination. all about specialization. smart defense is about to set priorities and to better coordinate collective efforts. therefore, smart defense is all about your graphical proximity also capability. area distribution and specialization. is a correlation of a administrative and military di