defense secretary nominee pete had sex will appear in a he worked forerandvocacy group. we also had a s thregion probably policy from harvard university. from the senate armed servic committee, you canch le coverage at 9:30 p.m.- 9: a.m. eastern on c-span three or online at c-span.org. >> democracy, it is not just an idea, it is a process. a process shaped by leaders and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles. it is where debates unfold, decisions are made and nations courses are charted. democracy in real time. this is your government work. this is c-span, giving you your democracy unfiltered.

>> the former chair of the joint chiefs of staff general mark milley talked about u.s. national security and global challenges at an event in new york city. topics included the israel-hamas conflict, the war in ukraine, and threats posed by china. this is 30 minutes. >> our next guest has spent most of his life keeping america safe. before retiring in 2023, general mark milley served as the 20th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the nation's highest ranking military officer and the principal military adviser to the president of the united states, the secretary of defense and the national security council. before that, general milley served as chief of staff of the army. and over his distinguished military career, he held multiple command and staff positions that included tours in iraq, afghanistan, korea and multiple international hot spots. i had the honor of working alongside general milley when i was serving as the assistant to

the secretary of defense for public affairs and pentagon press secretary under the late ash carter. and i saw firsthand general milley's leadership, his wise counsel and his deep commitment to our men and women in uniform and as general milley enjoys a well deserved retirement. he's actually busier than ever and among his new responsibilities, he's now a senior adviser to jp morgan chase. today, he's going to help us better understand the dangerous world we live in and the threats to our nation and our economy. please join me in giving a warm welcome to general mark milley. [applause] thanks for being here. it is great to see you. i'm not used to seeing you out of uniform. so, first of all, congratulations on your retirement. are you relaxed now? gen. milley: probably not, but i'm ok. >> good, good.

well, we're honored to have you here and to share your expertise and knowledge about it. what is a dangerous world? and, and i know you've given a lot of thought to it and you keep tabs on everything going on the world. let's go around the world to some of the hot spots that you're keeping an eye on. let's start in the middle east. we've seen what's happened over the last few, almost the past year. we saw this past weekend the israeli strikes in iran. you and i in the pentagon been talking about israeli strikes in iran a few years ago. that was a very big deal. it is a very big deal. what's your sense of where this goes next and just how dangerous it is going forward? gen. milley: first, let me thank you and the team for inviting me and, uh, i recognize that i can't see hardly anybody but i know that the people in the road are controlling basically $24 trillion or $25 trillion of a $30 trillion economy.

so good on you for doing that. and you may or may not quite realize it, i know people thank all of us in uniform for our service, but i want to thank you and your service because the two key components of national security and the international scene is a strong military and a strong economy. and i, and i'm here to tell you that the banking community of the united states is strong, 4500 banks across the country. we've got an incredible economy as you just saw with the economists and the envy of the world and a lot of that has to do with you guys. so, thanks so much for your service. [applause] gen. milley: peter, to get to your question on the middle east, look. middle east is a real challenge right now as we know, and you don't need me to necessarily tell you that. october 7th was a horrible day. hamas in my view, and this can be somewhat controversial, i suppose. and i don't mean to be that way, but hamas is a terrorist organization. there's, there's no daylight in my mind between hamas and what the nazis did at auschwitz sort

of thing. their goal, their objective is, is to murder all the jews and destroy the state of israel. and they are dedicated to that goal. they, it's in their charter, they came across that border on the seventh and they slaughtered 1200 people in a couple of hours. if that happened in the united states, the equivalent would be 70,000 americans killed in a couple of hours in brutal ways that don't need description here. so it's, it's understandable from my perspective as a soldier, uh the israeli reaction which was overwhelming military force and they dedicated themselves. their military objective is to destroy hamas as a political and military entity. now, here we are a year later and they have pretty much accomplished that military task. they have destroyed probably two thirds, maybe 70% of hamas as best i can tell. destroyed most of their logistics and certainly killed all of their leadership. now, hamas is more than just people and guns.

it's also an idea and there hasn't been a political replacement to hamas yet, but they've done a lot of damage to hamas. the cost of that though has been extraordinarily high, which is the collateral damage to the palestinian people in gaza. the military task of fighting in a highly dense urban area with a couple million people and a couple of square miles is really, really difficult and the israelis have not gone in there with the intent to slaughter a murder of civilians, but hamas is hiding behind civilians, they're hiding below hospitals, they're hiding inside a mosque, etc. so the military task was extraordinarily difficult for the israelis. but i think now that the leadership is gone, there is an opportunity here. and i think you saw on the news just yesterday where the egyptians are offering to help out with a bit of a cease fire. at the end of the day, you'll probably see over the course of time, some political program emerge, you'll probably see some

sort of hopefully an arab led peacekeeping force, peace enforcement force to go in there and stabilize the situation. but gaza and hamas is only one part of a larger problem. you've got a significant issue going on with lebanese hezbollah on the northern front, the west bank. you've got shia militias that operate out of syria and iraq, you've got the houthis and of course, behind all is iran and you just saw an israeli counter to the iranian attack where the iranians launched a 180 crew -- crews, ballistic missiles at iran or at israel and, and the israelis took those down. but the israelis answered with some precision strikes the other day, limited, not devastating and those strikes were meant to send a message to iran that israel can operate with impunity inside the, inside the iranian airspace. they took out air defense sites, took out some missile sites. now, what will iran do in reaction remains to be seen? so, in the last 24 hours, iran said they would respond, they would use all the tools, but we don't know exactly what that's going to be yet. so we're in an escalation ladder. this could go in a lot of

different directions. none of which is exactly predictable right now. but israel has the right to defend itself and that's exactly what they're doing and i think the us is supporting them. exactly right. host: the capabilities that the israelis have displayed over the last year or so, even in the last few weeks, i'm sure you're well aware of them, but they have, as you said, achieved some of their military goals. gen. milley: they have, they've achieved their military objectives to destroy the military entity or the terrorist entity called hamas. they've also taken out the entire leadership of lebanese hezbollah. you saw that over the last couple of weeks. that's incredible. what from military technical standpoint, their ability to destroy the leadership of lebanese hezbollah is impressive, but lebanese hezbollah is not destroyed, just their leadership. now it's a big organization, lebanese hezbollah. and the objective for the israelis, i believe is to prevent lebanese hezbollah from continuing to conduct missile rocket attacks and to push them

back probably north of the litani river. again, very difficult task, not yet complete and we'll see where that goes. but again, the bigger issue will be iran at the end of the day. it's my belief and i may be wrong but i think that iran's hidden hand is behind a lot of this and these are surrogates of iran, lebanese hezbollah and the houthis and hamas. so i don't think they're doing things without some sort of iranian approval. the iranians may not have exact command and control in the true sense of that word, but they have a degree of influence that is much beyond, you know, just talking. so they've got advisers, they've trained, they man equip they give them weapons and so on and so forth. so there's a lot of influence there. and i do think that iran is playing a very, very heavy hand here. so israel's fighting in four or 56 different directions

simultaneous. it's not over by a long shot and we will see where it goes. from a u.s. standpoint, our interest is to maintain, to contain this at a level of conflict so it doesn't expand into a very broad, very significant regional conflict where u.s. or european forces have to be involved in some capacity. that is not in u.s. interest. it is a regional conflict in the sense that you've got attacks coming from multiple directions, but it's not a very large regional conflict yet, it could go that way. it may not, we'll see what happens but that would not be in the interest of the global community. it certainly wouldn't be in the interest of the countries of the middle east, israel and certainly not in the interest of the united states. host: obviously, we have us forces in the area. they're not directly involved except for the u.s. navy sailors out in the red sea helping defend shipping lanes and keeping commerce flowing. any thoughts about the cadence and what's being asked of those? gen. milley: well, we do have troops in exposed positions.

so you have ground troops in syria. you've got ground troops in iraq. we do have some folks in israel. obviously, you've got american citizens, you've got embassy folks there. you've got the u.s. naval personnel, we've got air forces deployed throughout the middle east. you've got a considerable footprint in the middle east that are all in various levels of exposure. if it was a broad regional conflict. now, we're capable of defending ourselves. your military is extraordinarily capable in so many ways. and i know general carilla, the commander of centcom has taken all the appropriate force protection measures for his troops. so our guys are at risk though, nobody should underestimate the levels of risk. our people are at in the middle east right now. host: let's move into europe if we can, the situation in ukraine. some people have described it as a stalemate. how do you see this playing out next? and what, what's your, what's your takeaway at this moment in time about that conflict? gen. milley: well, i think it is a strategic stalemate so

tactically, at the tactical level, you're getting puts and takes on either side, you saw this offensive by the ukrainians into kursk. you have seen local offenses by the russians. so tactically, you're getting some advances and retreats on either side. so there's some tactical gains and losses. but at the strategic level, it is, in fact, it's stalemate. it has been for some time. and what do i mean by that? well, warfare is always about political objectives. so the political objectives of the russians was to go ahead and topple the government of ukraine. capture and kill zelenskyy and his government. and then get to the carpaccio mountains. that failed a couple of years ago. the political objective of the ukrainians is to reject the 250,000 russians that are currently occupying 20% of ukraine. so, the probability of russia

overrunning ukraine is very low militarily speaking and the probability of ukraine militarily compelling the withdrawal of a quarter million russian troops is equally. neither side has the military wherewithal to achieve any one of those political objectives at the strategic level. it is a stalemate and it has been for right some time. what will break the stalemate, we will see. i think in the case of president putin and i am not a mind reader, but i believe he's calling in other countries to bring in reinforcements. the russians are calling around 500,000, 600,000 killed and wounded which is significant. the russians still have a capable and naval and missile force for the ground force has

been chewed up seriously. russian ground forces have lost their tanks, mechanized infantry vehicles, personnel. i think calling a north korean ground troops is an indicator of the degree of stress and strain that russia is under. you saw previously where they were using chris there's and so on and so forth -- where they have been using prisoners and so on and so forth. russia has suffered. having said that, if the united states somehow withdraws military aid, financial aid, or if europe, nato withdraws that in the coming months or years, that would probably be catastrophic for ukraine. they would probably still fight but would be fighting at a great disadvantage and russia would be a strategic boost and probably have a strategic win.

that would be unfortunate. for the u.s., i'm in the camp, that i think is bipartisan consensus, to continue to support ukraine militarily. if you think about it, in terms of money, you guys are all bankers -- we have put about 3% equivalent of the u.s. department of defense budget to support ukraine. most of that money has gone into american contractors to build the weapons to give to ukraine. in terms of -- i am not trying to be cold-blooded, hearing about money and lives, but that investment has resulted in the near destruction a couple times over. the ukrainians have done the fighting. no americans involved, no nato troops involved in the fighting. as a matter of practicality, that is something we need to do but it is much bigger than that.

ukraine is not just about ukraine for the united states. it's about how world war ii ended and what world war ii was fought about which was the so-called rules-based international order. it is written into the very first paragraph of the united nations charter. at the end of world war ii, we americans wrote, as you are jamie diamond say, we wrote the rules that has made us prosperous and safe for the last eight decades. those rules are under incredible stress. they are under stress in europe, to be sure, by the attack of russia into ukraine. the very first rule that underwrites that is countries cannot use their military to attack smaller and weaker countries arbitrarily unless it is in active defense. in the case of russia-ukraine, ukraine was never going to attack russia. so, this was an act of aggression by putin, which by

definition, is an illegal act. the u.s. stands for something in the sense of international order and it is our job to stand on that principle. but we are committing all kinds of resources in terms of weapon and money and intelligence. peter: one last question on ukraine. here we are talking about the north koreans coming in apparently of the russian state of the what do we know about the capabilities of the russian military? what have we learned? gen. milley: war is a dynamic interaction between competing wills. the russians clearly underestimated the ukrainian capability. the russian are fighting a nation in arms, not just the ukrainian military. they attacked with about 200,000

or so in a conventional combined arms offensive. and they used their air-powered, missile power and ground forces. the ukrainians had early warning from us. we gave them very exquisite intelligence. the ukrainian military was able to effectively execute an area of defense and we thought at the zone with the weapons they needed at the time which were antitank weapons against assault. we give them more antitank weapons and there are tanks in the world. they were effectively used. with the bravery of the ukrainian people, they were able to defeat the initial offensive. then, russia readjusted and they brought their troops out of the northeast and they came around to try to create this continuous land bridge over the summer and

that offensive failed as well for the same reasons. ukraine launched limited counteroffensive's which were successful, then over the winter they try to build their force with u.s. and european help to conduct a large counteroffensive in the spring which did not achieve its objectives. i would tell you the ukrainian people fought an extraordinary fight and are still fighting an extraordinary fight. their resources are not unlimited, and the russian military, you have shifted now into a lot of drone war and a lot of capabilities being introduced but the russian military, i don't think they were overestimated per se, i think they executed their operations as we thought they would. and the ukrainians beat them on the battlefield. i think a couple of things that did surprise me -- one was the

russian air force. the russian air force did not perform the way i thought they were going to perform and that is because the ukrainian air defense was effective against the russian air force. they shot down the russian airplanes the initial part of the fight, so the russians, they used to there air force from russian airspace launching long-range precision missiles into ukraine. that was one. the other one that really surprised me was the effective use of russian electronic warfare. i thought that was going to be a much bigger factor than it proved to be. i'm still not 100% sure why they didn't shut down the networks the ukrainians were using. some people have suggested because they were using the same frequency levels, same radio types. i don't know. i'm not sure today what the full reason is. the full capability of russian electronic warfare i don't think was brought to bear. broadly speaking, no, i don't

think they were overestimated. i think the ukrainian defensive capability and the heroic nation of the ukrainian people were underestimated. peter: i will move you to asia now. asia pacific, we have seen with the chinese have been doing to bolster their military. we have seen the south china sea and some of the activities there. we have seen the tension around taiwan that continues. what makes you nervous or what has your eye in the indo pacific right now? gen. milley: we are in a geopolitical competition, struggle with china. it's going to be multigenerational. this is not near-term, like tomorrow or the next day it's going to be over. and there is the possibility, not the probability, but the possibility of armed conflict between two great powers, the united states and china. china has the natural resources, the people, the population and

the money to challenge the united states on the political scale. i was commissioned in 1980, 44 years of service. during those years, the russian military -- the chinese military transitioned from a foot in victory -- foot infantry army with no satellites, no navy, nosing to begin air force. in 1979, they reformed their economy. you know the chinese economy had a growth rate of 10% or so for 30 years. it came down to 7% and now 4%. they have internal challenges, but china became a powerfully rich country, second only to the united states. like most countries throughout history, when they earn that level of wealth, when they develop that amount of financial weight in the system, they also embarked upon a military program

to develop their military to be world-class. so, for the first time in chinese history, they have now 44 years later, develop a world-class military. they are not equal yet to the united states military. the u.s. military so the most powerful, most effective force in the world. and the chinese know that. but, the chinese are trying to develop their military to a point where they will be the dominant military in east asia, western pacific, at leas by the mid-2030's, maybe earlier. president xi has asked his generals to develop the capability to invade, and taiwan sees it by 2027. >> we are leaving this to go would to capitol hill to hear from pete hegseth. his confirmation hearing before the senate armed services committee is about to get underway.

live coverage on c-span3. [applause] [crowd chanting "usa"]