only alternative. the question was, did we use the right methods? did we communicate perfectly with our russian -- first soviet, then russian partners? that is a big question. i believe the decision in 1994 and the subsequent one in 1997 it was a necessary decision. >> how was it seen in russia at the time? how would you answer that question? i will answer it today the way they answered it in that time. one of my russian compatriots -- 9.celebrated v-day on may

what happened after that? is part of the answer to your question. that ispened after stalin remained in power in the andem of which ignited participated in aggression 1993 -- against poland, that system in russia in the soviet union remains. that was the course of the cold war instead of the united in proper terms of not in technical terms of the word. then what happens today, the main problem is that russia has this.t bothered with

stalin is referred to the approved or endorsed textbooks for our children. able -- as an manager. can you believe it happened in germany with hitler? an ableonsidered manager. that is basically what happened. that is basically the root of the problem today with the theine that is part of russian establishment. do you know what happened? 1994, russian elite, the ruling class, those who

benefited the most and privatized the results of the --ocratic revolution of 1991 i haven't seen any of those in the so-called white house in augustthe coup 1991. they were quick to privatize the and gasw from the oil experts, which is still the basic economy. amazing the russian onte today is mostly based -- that is the answer to the question. russian elite to enable,

theleft russia to post-soviet propaganda that is what it is today. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> it is very painful for me to say these things. nd disappointed but did you think this would be a back door way? this would morph into an to nato pathway membership even though at the time it was painted in a different fashion? >> i will be frank. at this moment, we are very disappointed. the -- fourhat was nato membership, for the first time, and member of the polish

government began talking about nato members in february and march in 1992. they said it was a threat of potential stability. way there was withical conflict [indiscernible] we were afraid of weakness and instability in the russia. consequences of potential conflicts -- that is why we were interested in joining nato. that therelso say was a lot of naïveté. it was almost 100% political

decision. we did not understand how much we had to do ourselves to for the power and personnel, etc., etc. in '94, we reacted with disappointment. trick.a kind of not fair to us. from a different perspective, it was a life decision. we are ready had to do a lot. we did our homework very well. we could then become edible and reliable. >> you were there at the time. inside the inner council at nato , was it seen as many americans, political figures were trade it? -- portrayed it?

did they help themselves there in various just beats between putes between them and on the borders? aimed at part of the objective that it was bolster the defense against a possible resurgence in russia? all, thank you to the wilson center for allowing me to appear. that natog to say is hasn't received [indiscernible] in 1999 several years after the cold war. we put in place a comprehensive security system that included a russia. to do not try

enlargements with nato expanding eastward. we were responding to the legitimate aspirations of central and eastern european countries. they wanted to be part of the europe family. it worked so well for us. it.idn't rush into the prime minister for to the countries themselves. willing to help share the word ends with membership. membership.ith nato has become [indiscernible] in operations. peacekeeping and supporting the united nations. they have to understand that it was a two-way street. they would not only receive

protection, but contribute to providing protection for others. we have to remember before nato and large, we had to negotiate. several others remember this very well. months butated for the russian foreign minister over nato and russia. -- we may clear that we're not doing this for russia, but embracing russia. it was about giving russia a voice.f a say, a place, ready to go forward with nato membership. it was all about repeating those -- were small

countries had to [indiscernible] the geography determined your faith or history. for example, one of the reasons nato came about was because some in yourarlier ideas struck the people in going back to the loose league of nations where everybody is used possible for everybody else's security and therefore no one is secure. there was a natural rebellion politically. make is thatant to [indiscernible] that has to be remembered.

>> you have been observing all of this and you have talked with all of these people. how much thought was given to potential blowback from russia? point, wasbservation there a sincere desire or at least intention that if russia was involved in a certain way, it could he come part of the community or not? thes it has been indicated, are is a consistent record on the part of nato and beginning with the first visit of the secretary general to reach out russian spirit of cooperation. that has remained the case i think in terms of nato's approach. they have the permanent joint council of negotiating and then nato russian council. i think it is sincere in the

terms of understanding on the part of nato countries. europe securities and many issues in global security requires cooperation from the russian federation. they're working out the challenges and that relationship going forward. it would be important. her opponent of [indiscernible] i have been working on engaging with the new democracies. i cannot imagine what the circumstances would have been in in defensee support transformation and democratic development without the european union and nato. the same time, i think we have to recognize that it is reasonable the part of moscow given nato's history to be concerned about nato's movement and increasing russia's border and the matter how minute assurances are given over the last period, many don't except

that. been consistent opposition. russian leadership to nato's enlargement -- i think the challenge remains given that the vast array of common security interest and the importance of thinkelationship, -- i the situation in ukraine was predict it will. the russians have talked about drawing this line. .e could only go so far they are very nervous and concerned about ukraine's ties with western nations. it is too bad it has turned into a contest where countries like ukraine and montenegrin another aspiring nations are wanting to move closer to the planet humanity and make the choice. the best choice would be to securitize with neighbors.

>> you wanted to jump in here. germanuld like to add a feel -- view on why we did what and how ithe '90's came about. some of us in the german government opposed to move forward on the nato enlargement on inviting the first group of countries, the chancellor at the time -- i remember a meeting where he said, don't do anything . i need to talk to my friend first. he came back and said, we will have to do this in a kind of two pillar arrangement. we could call this the nato enlargement pillar. weequally substantial pillar could call the nato-russia pillar. let's build these two

simultaneously. let's change the relationship as we invite more members. everyonehe way to give maybe not happy, but tolerant the issues youh mentioned. they were a legitimate concerns. a second observation, when i looked at the debate we are having today in moscow and also here in the u.s., we seem to be falling behind. during the first clinton administration, i recall that we had a bit of a debate. would it make sense to invite nato and russia to become over time a member of nato? recall, 12-13 years ago around 2001, that

question was raised again. obviously the russian's response was we are not interested in being a member of nato, we are interested in the change a relationship. russia went further and came back to us more recently with a whole new concept for the relationship between the west and russia for european security. some of the ideas that were put forward by medvedev during his tenure as president of russia simply in our you were not acceptable to all in the west. it was just not going to work. i think to finish, we have thehed the point where

ukrainian crisis, we will need to take a sharp look again at how we can over time construct a european order, a european security document that is good for us and also ok for russia. ahead, wase jump there a feeling that the west was taking advantage of russia at a time of weakness. the economy, the political situation, it was really quite chaotic. is there still a feeling that the west was moving ahead in a way because they could afford to ignore russia? fort is difficult to speak

.ny country as a whole if you speak for republicans or democrats, you would find many different senses. inis even much more so different countries. democratic andth those who are in government like myself are aware of the democratic momentum in the 1990's, that the was opportunity for russia to and it was revolutionary. it was fundamental change. democratic system. this window of opportunity with very much in the center of the problem. yes, we agree more that

wanted to use this window of opportunity very soon. nato, answer your question. were unablernment, to fulfill the promise of the democratic change. helped usould have plan. kind of martial that would have required more political focus on the resource to seize the moment and help russia. i was the one to advocate it. it is absolutely correct.

withwe need russia first nader to avoid the commotion, to avoid those difficulties. that was our concept. russia first. that is why we would against we call it.sty as the formula at the time was yes to partnership with nato. fundamental, strategic partnership. no to hasty advisement. we were fearful that there would the cold. be left in

the problem of russia nato is much more difficult. the all due respect, problem of other countries in eastern europe, including problemand georgia, the is that the russia is a nuclear superpower. it was a nuclear superpower and still a nuclear superpower. by russianl targeted initials even as we speak -- russian missiles even as we speak. when -- >> by u.s. missiles? [laughter] i'm targeted by my own missiles. [laughter] it sounds funny, but i do not

feel that it is funny. i know the missiles. you have to take into account -- elections. [indiscernible] that is where the submarines are and the missiles of the submarines. elections at the naval meetactually, you have to the office and the large army part of natoe

immediately are probably not anytime. it is still difficult. a technical two terms, there is some truth to what was said -- in technical terms, there is some truth to what was said. a enough. but technically, the negotiations with nato were largely mishandled by our nato partners. -- it took me two with my actually argue

counterpart at the time from the united states. started to concentrate on the program. , even now.'t do it it is much more difficult. that,e started to address in 1995, believe it or not, it was probably too late. you arestic act -- if interested in details of that, read my memoirs. [laughter] maybe someone will be interested in publishing my memoirs. you'll learn how those negotiations were proceeding.

in technical terms, we had a lot of promises. promises and negotiating real problems rather than just general discussion -- >> let me jump in here. promisesprobably empty than empty threats. >> let's jump to the president in ukraine and the kind of challenge the situation presents to nato. mr. prime minister, what would what kind ofmean, challenges this for nato? what could nato possibly do, if anything? >> this is a very serious situation.

i think that the democratic west has not reacted in a proper way. it is a risky tactic. if we do not stop at aggressive policy, we could face a much more difficult situation and inspire more risks and taking more risks and so on. [indiscernible] what after solving the crisis? what do you mean i solving the ukrainian crisis? what does it mean? of this one element crisis that will be difficult to

be solved -- crimea. heart of the state -- part of the state that was stolen by an aggressor. if we are really serious about values and so on, we get no other option than to say crimea must be given back and return to ukraine. it seems to be almost unrealistic. we have to find an answer to this question. just one sentence -- of course, nato has two react in the sense that the reality in europe became different.

the most important answer should be given in another area. looking at this and covering it, it does appear that other than trying to reassure our article five covered member state, this is really very can do to assist ukraine. is that right? >> the me make it clear that i think there are four aspects to doing this crisis and they are all interrelated and we need to work together. as the nato prime minister has said, they're trying to successfully reassure the new not so new,s -- many have been in nato for many years -- but an assurance of defense. troops ben sending in

-- be it in the air, on land, or on the sea. at least we could put limits on how far they could go in geographical terms. they have elections coming up. everyone used to improve the resilience of ukraine and resist this sort of oppression at the moment from russia. it will not happen overnight.

[indiscernible] they were giving the impression after the annexation of crimea that they would wait two or three weeks and they would go back to business as usual. so far, the international community, everybody is showing remarkable consistency. indeed, the russian economy is [indiscernible] talking about the russian elite. spend a couple of hours in the bookstore. by russianken over language books.

millions of russians now living outside of russia. in the wake of the crisis, they lost about 10% of their value. in the short-term, president putin might feel robbed or strengthen this nationalist emotion -- feel proud or this nationalist emotion. -- impact of this isolation what we're doing is nato is we are keeping the door open.

russia still integrated into europe. that a separate dialogue with the european union. they are very firmly integrated. what theyisms for were calling the [indiscernible] they're hoping sooner or later president putin or the russian government of the russian elite would come to their senses and thrill ofe short-term difference -- it is going through a severe decline. >> president putin has asserted the right of russia to intervene

to protect the rights of ethnic russians anywhere. there are nato member states that have a lot of ethnic russians. is there any doubt in the minds of anyone in this gathering that if russia were to invade or even try to destabilize both in crimea and now in eastern ukraine, one of the nato member states, in article five mutual defense, full throated defense would be the reaction from nato? >> there will be. the problem is the public asnion is not the same others. >> yes. i think they can be sure. be ambiguous.

you're right. they're still concern in the public. it becomes much less clear what constitutes an invasion or -- these are issues that will have to be discussed in nato and considered and i think a present certain challenges and some are theing through a web point -- at what point the -- >> the german public support in military response if russia were to attempt a sort of eastern ukraine kind of destabilization campaign in one of these nato member states? >> no.

the clear answer is no. i do not think the u.s. public would support a military response. president obama has ruled out a military response. nato has not. >> that is ukraine. i'm talking about the same scenario in a nato state. >> i'm sorry. i misunderstood you. of course. that would be a totally different ballgame. the tummy tuck the article five for the members of nato. and i case, there would be no doubt that we would need to come up with determined action and not rule out military responses. as we look at the situation

today, it is important to remind ourselves that demonizing unnecessary,in as --might find his decisions imposing sanctions on russia alone does not amount to a strategy. in other words, what we need is a strategy. that would take a longer time than we have year, but one element in my view of a strategy is to understand that our first purpose ought to be to bee sure that ukraine can turned hopefully over time. it will not happen at the push of a button. dysfunctional state into a functional state into a prosperous state come

into a stable state. it would require a lot of money. the u.s. has made some resources available. bringl need to help or politically and economically just the military issue. i think that is important. i do not need to explain to this audience how many times over the last decade or so we have allowed ourselves, americans and split in the be management of crises. remember iraq? u rememberem -- yo

libya? there are different believes. between the eu and the u.s., we have managed to keep things together. athink we would be offering victory on the silver platter to president putin if he allowed us within the eu or within the transit atlantic to be divided over a certain response. and i onlyte frankly mean that half seriously we can say that maybe, inc. you, president putin -- thank you, president putin, that there is a need to have a vibrant and active nato. somewhere beginning to think that maybe we do not need this organization that much anymore. you for mining as it is a

good idea to look at have to diversify our energy sources. thank you, mr. president, for an essentialit is objective for the european union to speak with one voice and not only when things are calm, but particularly at times of a crisis. i was hoping we would not need this, but i still think it is very useful. of wake-up call is a? -- is it?hagel do you think there'll be any change in that dynamic? well, when i look at the situation, the wake up call

should be while we were pursuing the pivot of the rebalance toward asia, think the situation has only reinforced an important relationship. that the foundation for the very challenging world that we face, think of this in terms of not only military engagement, but equally and perhaps even more important from a political and diplomatic level. resource been primary for the united states always. >> there is a military limit. >> yes, of course. -- there is a military element. >> yes, of course. we are spending more on defense. defense is part of an integrated nato, couple mentor he structure

that -- couplimentary structure. countries.different it is being neglected. that is why i agreed that strategy is always needed. how important it is to react in islear and tough way to what the international law. it does not to demonize mr. putin. something. what can happen in europe? consistent in the

political opposition. the only way to convince people in our country -- unfortunately, there is a time when we have for -- defense. >> do you think anything the west could do now could turn putin from the earn back -- current path? >> you know what, it is a tendency to be very dependent on the west. us to stand up. there was no us -- always -- the oil price was so low.

we do not have any kind of mono -- money that they have not moscow. veryr time, counterproductive. audience questions seen. do you think there is anything now that can be done? >> yes. stay away from empty threats. i agree with the prime minister. if you feel that it was aggression that you called it that way, your words should mean something to otherwise, it is. they speak up a little petty legal decisions of russian parliamentary'ies. parliament is in support of what they call aggression now in the west, yet members of russia parliament will meet.

for the spring vacation. you do not go even to london. you go to miami. you go to new york. you will see those people, members of the parliament. >> [indiscernible] are somehowpeople selected. i don't endorse that. what i am saying is that there should be consistency between words. you should do something. if you are not prepared to deprive yourself from [indiscernible] which i fully understand, of course. there are billions of dollars in london, new york, miami, french riviera.

people are waiting in the best restaurants for those people to come. i'm not speaking of all the oligarch. i don't have millions of dollars. and speaking of people who actually voting. they should have been told if they did something wrong anyone introduce sanctions. you have to tell them. otherwise they come here and then they spend spring vacation and they come back and what is the conclusion? the conclusion is that the west and probably as corrupt as anything back home. it is empty words. .mpty words are corrected right?

e peoplearguing for thos to come necessarily. it would be very painful. next time i would probably think vote forther i should something or go to miami or my villa. [laughter] keep your [indiscernible] words.fferent blood will be spilled more in ukraine unfortunately. i saw the yugoslavian drama. and milosevic [indiscernible]

unfortunately, it will be bloody. people, like russian people, they deserve a clear message. if you are not prepared to stay away from big money, be at least earnest. [indiscernible] is $250 thousand euroes. it does not even count in. -- counted. [laughter] are they prepared to pay? yes. there should be some consistency.

basically they are on the right side of history. i agree that it is our problem you might call-- it technical terms or day by day terms that there should be more responsibility and consistency in the west. something,rily do but if you're not prepared, don't say that you are . >> we have installed the -- haven issue installed the ukrainian issue. what does this mean? is this a fundamental turn or shift in the relationship of

nato with russia? we will look back and said this is one of those hinged points. a lot depends on what russia does. it takes two to tango. we don't want closed doors. we have cooperated with russia in the past. the point and tried to make is in the short run -- the point i'm trying to make is in the deterents and

reassurance. stoporld is not going to simply because of the ukraine crisis. pirates are going to go into hibernation. terrorism is spreading more rapidly. yes, we had to do it this issue of reassurance. minister, what would you -- >> [indiscernible] >> with a year think, prime minister, this means -- what do you think, prime minister, this means? solve or come up with a solution to ukraine. >> we will not go beyond

[indiscernible] there is no good answer with out finding an answer to what i said before. neglect about the effect that have taken place. let me just say that i generally need to workthey together closely with russia. we share lot of common interest. suicidal. is i would like to overcome that situation. there [indiscernible] they had to get out of ukraine. they had to stop interfering

with other countries. regulationse have denting the rights of minorities in the countries of europe and so on. complains reasons to and go to european this additions. cannot accept the situation in ukraine. i do not know what is a solution for that. mr. putin announced a new doctrine. expect [indiscernible] we also have to address ordinary to change the enthusiasm shared by a majority of the population.

it always ended in total catastrophe. >> do you want to jump in here? >> if you look back and determine -- it to serious in the russia-georgia war in the 1990's. there were difficult periods. there was discussion all over that we might have returned to a cold war are returning to another cold war. we managed to move past that. there's a vast array of critical shared security interest. difficult situation. the stakes for russia is much greater in the ukrainian case. we need to pursue all of these

opportunities in the council to continue to try to engage and work through these problems with russia. power. they are a major it is important that we understand some of the major strategic issues that are in stake. it we have the united states and russia working in a competitive or in nme sort of approach in dealing with that situation, i think it could be grim for the future. it is worth trying, but it won't be easy. we should expect that. we have to think long-term in a look at this in terms of the short term or in the intermediate.

hearing anyone use the term "containment." i'm hearing some elements of europe needs to diversify its energy sources. but would you say to that? do things sentimental -- something fundamental -- do you think something fundamental is happening here question mark -- here? where do we look the other way and move on? take georgia seriously enough. my own view is that what we are seeing is a policy of revisionism. that is what you call that. question what is --

there are two kinds of leaders in the world. of leaderse category that takes what is and has to create a better future. a good example that is a leader of singapore. weman leaders postwar -- would still be fighting with poland. we would be fighting with france over [indiscernible] and we would claim that some ours who speak german german undeserved the protection of the german armed forces if something happens in poland that we don't like. this is chaos. this is awful.

i hope everyone listens to when he speaks about how important consistency is. consistency is very close to credibility. whatever we say has got to match what we do. in response to your question, what about nato, we are going to need to take a fresh look at how important the core function of nato is to our countries. the core function of the collective defense has gotten more or less forgotten a little bit. we thought it was no longer really necessary. we wish to say germany is

surrounded by friends and now everything is wonderful. obviously we need to take a fresh look because poland is our immediate neighbor and part of our club. yes, i think there must be a comprehensive review of our priorities both in the eu and nato. let's not do it with foaming at the mouth. let's keep cool. let's always have consistency. we will gothought, to questions in the audience. briefly give your name and affiliation. give a question and not a statement.

>> we have talked about [indiscernible] a couple of times, especially in april 2008. they decided not to extend membership to ukraine and georgia. within four months, georgia was invaded. , wisdom has been spoken a number of times today. >> who would like to take that? [laughter] to get to all the questions come up does somebody want to volunteer? ? we lost him. they are replacing the call. i can take that question. >> did you hear the question?

>> i did hear the question. everyone -- to give ask everyone to give a brief answer. in it a mistake to not take georgia and ukraine in 2008? inthey were still preparation for membership. that work continues. what nato has not done in the is lift thecrisis offer of an ultimate georgia membership if they meet the conditions. lumping them together is wrong. for a considerable time, ukraine has made it clear they are not seeking nato membership. sometimes i am mystified that -- russians are seeking to

when the russians mention ukraine as seeking to join nato as soon as possible. a deliberate process of preparation that georgia has to go through. the natobelieve decision was the nation -- reason. use it as some kind of alibi or justification or smokescreen for carrying out riel politic design -- realpolitik designs. i have my doubts. >> right here in the red and blue tie. benjamin, retired american diplomat. my question goes to the ambassador's opening remarks. you talked about the consequences of not having had nato expansion.

that suggests a lack of confidence in the ability of the west to muster sufficient economic assistance and investment to integrate and develop the economies of eastern europe with a spillover to the countries of the former soviet union. that seems the real tragedy, wouldn't you agree? on massiveis economic assistance for ukraine means we have learned the lesson , but perhaps a bit late. thank you. >> you want to comment? >> i can be brief. yes, i would tend to agree with you. i don't speak on behalf of the german government. i don't want to be misunderstood. i speak as a private citizen.

i believe we did not pay enough attention to, also financially and economically, to the challenges of our eastern neighbors. we should have acted long before russia started to think about crimea. about how to help stabilize a country that has had a country for two decades of not really making its way forward as we were hoping. was the other part of your question? >> the gentleman in the blue sweater. we will have the 25th of may. ukraine is supposed to have the

referendum. how do you think we could help withto have free elections the situation? believe we can do very little about eastern ukraine. the security situation will decide about the possibility of any kind of elections there. in my opinion, this is one of the targets of hidden intervention. not to have elections rather than a kind of pretext that questions the results of elections in general. in the rest of ukraine, it has been decided there will be a lot of observers. european institutions.

we can expect fair elections. >> yes, right here. the gentleman and then the lady behind him. >> hi, i am part of the eastern europe and nato. when you first became a part of the -- one of your speeches was here in washington at the center for strategic and international studies. i had the honor of hearing you at it. you laid out plans that if the soviet union were to break up, fromould prevent it becoming a nuclear yugoslavia. i am stunned you achieved peace and that condition. we owe you a debt of gratitude.

you are not as honored as you deserve. history should note your important role. especially now when mr. prudent utin is assuming the role of mr. milosevic. that is not my question but i think you deserve that honor. ofquestion is about the lack deeds connected with words you have brought up. mr. gorbachev was discussing unification of germany. i am not going to talk about the myth that we promised nato would never move east. it is a lie. gorbachev raised the question, shouldn't russia join nato? james baker pooh-poohed him. saidter regretted that and he should not have done that. he should have engaged gorbachev on that question. acts of theirst

yield and government -- yeltsin government -- they had to withdraw because it was so embarrassing. i am wondering how much damage has been done by the lack of engagement with russia. and its interests with nato. >> yes, sir. >> first of all, i cannot agree on you -- more on your statement. thank you so much. [laughter] the --y, i agree with yes. that is where i technically agree. point of president putin.

was unclear. i would put it anyway, if you read my memoirs and somebody publishes them -- [laughter] i want russia to be, and -- westerno become a democracy. as a diplomat, i met with a lot of confusing signals from nato all the time. even the prime minister said, that is very interesting. the be leave a partnership for peace was instead of membership. if they believe that in poland, how much in russia, and the kremlin, especially hard-line

hardlinersespecially tended to believe it? by that time, everything was lost. every opportunity, the window was closed. for domestic reasons. he believed that when he signed nato-russianon of partnership, which nato uploaded , he came home and said publicly they promised him that under the declaration with the promise of formert to expand to soviet space. that is the baltic states.

still has hisn advisor. he tended to believe he was deceived by that declaration. we could not find any record of any promises to gorbachev. tot nato would not expand eastern germany. we have no records of that. but gorbachev apparently seems to believe still today that he had such a promise. and -- dent yields altsin believes he had such promise. which i knew.

christopher. my western european colleagues spent time to explain that to me. they failed to tell that to president putin -- president boris yeltsin. that brings me back to my point. tois not enough for the west be on the right side of history. it is important. speak in clear terms. is what russians deserve. that is what putin deserves. that's what the russian parliament deserves. the ukrainian people, in particular today, because they are suffering. they are in a war actually. message.rve very clear and the message which meets --

somebody whispers something to somebody, you know? somebody hints we will go very protectionng you from whatever there is. thatat does not happen, might spell in blood. people start fighting, believing their somebody behind them. like those so-called pro-russian militias. they are fighting and believing the red army stands ready on the border. which is probably true. i tend to believe it is true. that is one thing. the other thing, if you promise of the people and then you fail, better not thomas. they will do it themselves. we're pretty sure that russian people haven't said their final

word yet. there will be a democratic revolution or continuation of democratic assesses in russia -- sooner orin russia later. maybe after will prices go a little bit down. because petrodollars by everything. including former chancellors. [laughter] >> i think we have time for -- >> don't deceive people. >> i think we have time, let's take to. -- two. the young lady and then the woman in blue. >> my name is laura. >> can you hold your my closer? ukraineght of the crisis, it has pointed to the weakness in security in the west and nato. that russia still has influence

in many of the countries. the caucus and eastern europe. what should nato due to an sure and -- insurer and reinforce the territorial integrity? moldova.rgia and >> we will take a second question. >> marie suck with northrop grumman -- marissa with northrop grumman. nato has called for a meeting to discuss ukraine. my question is simple. what can they hope to gain? apparently the u.s. does not support it. >> who would like to tackle these questions? jamie? >> the first question. we have to be clear. when it comes to nato, the security guarantee applies to nato members. which is why countries have to join nato in order to have that.

ukraine is not a nato ally. it is a partner and a close partner. they have participated in all operations,-- including afghanistan. we are treating a partnership seriously. we are helping them with defense restructuring and reform. reform of the intelligence services. to help make ukraine a more resulting in state. we have a strong partnership with georgia. we are helping- motorola. -- moldova. we are upgrading assistance to azerbaijan. the article five obligation extends only to nato allies. that is what we are doing when it comes to reassurance. one other point. russia has to play a role in

reassuring the countries of central and eastern europe. this is my last intervention. the more president yeltsin used to threaten these countries, the more he made it clear -- the more it drove them into the arms of nato. the more they became determined to seek membership. nato has to adopt a normal approach to security and play a part in reassurance. that is not what president putin is doing. >> very briefly, as a footnote in my viewreply, what russia has been doing in recent days and weeks is not

really a demonstration of russian strength. me, imore, to demonstration of russian weakness. think for a moment what russia has already lost,. loss of also trust. -- trust by all its neighbors. if president putin believes this is the way to go the eurasian union, good luck. i imagine that the president and not to buy john and others who -- the president in azerbaijan againhers will think about how to buy reassurance against russian ambitions. ussia's -- r strategy, i believe this is weakening russia.

also because of the disastrous economic consequences which these actions are going to produce. >> more from this discussion on nato expansion in a few moments with remarks from defense secretary chuck hagel. the white house correspondents dinner is coming up saturday night. live coverage begins tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. eastern. tonight, more than one doesn't -- more than a dozen events associated with the dinner are held tonight in washington. the hill is hosting a reception. our cameras in place just outside the embassy to catch some of the arrivals now on the red carpet. entertainmentts tonight's anchor nancy will hold a red carpet. tom cruise's some well bge jane -- will be djing.

taking a look at some of the byals at the event greeted the royal canadian mounted police. again, the white house correspondents dinner is tomorrow. live coverage begins at 6:00 pm eastern with red carpet arrivals. president obama. mckale will speak to the tethered celebrities in white house press corps. more from the woodrow wilson discussion on nato. chuck hagel addressed the group. he said european allies should trim it more to the alliance and rely less on u.s. military spending. in 1997, my daughter hillary,

i have a hillary and my own family, then a princeton senior, picked nato as her thesis topic. she called her mom to get my assessment. i had to think about it. nato expansion had been agreed upon in 1994. enthusiasm,al certainly in the u.s. congress. the senate voted 89-19. that is a very unusual vote these days. in 1998. to ratify the addition of three countries. poland, hungary, and the czech republic. 16 countries have now been added through six rounds of enlargement since the end of the cold war. there were also skeptics. tom friedman, the writer tom friedman, who is also a former osos color, wrote an op ed in which he quoted his interview

with the 94-year-old george kennan. kennan, the russians will gradually react adversely. we have signed up a number of countries even though we have neither the resources or intention to do so in a serious way. segue to 2014. the urgent challenge to de-escalate conflict and avoid miscalculation. nato expansion is again being scrutinized. topic, into the fold or out in the cold, could not be more timely. the institute was founded by the

kennan family. our global europe for graham -- program has hundreds of scholar alumni in the conflict zone. we have assembled a program today, including former officials from russia and poland , in key roles in 1994. wolfgang it to juror -- it zinger. the deputy secretary of nato. margaret warner. she will moderate. hereto keynote and kick off our conversation is chuck hagel. inwas elected to the senate 1990 seven and voted for nato expansion. i checked. [laughter] , he will remarks take quotes from the audience.

he is the first enlisted combat veteran to lead the department of defense. know that serving in government at the highest levels is a combat sport. full with the afghan drawdown, the pivot to asia, realignment of missions and resources. very tough budget constraints. the russia-ukraine issue is another urgent issue. nato's capacity and future role or on the line. as a member of the defense policy board, i grappled with this issue with our colleagues. mine are brighter than struggling to figure out what the vest answers are -- best answers are. is nottely, my daughter writing her thesis, or else i would have little advice for her. i returned from an event with chancellor merkel who is in

town. he is a good thing she is here. no doubt the conversation will center on these topics. a tough guy.him ready for the challenge. educated at the university of nebraska on the g.i. bill. will --'s record, foot nine-four. a few touchdowns for u.s. policy right now would be a good thing. face,ng a smile on your chuck, as you are here. here is a scarf from the cornhuskers. go big red. these welcome chuck hagel. the secretary of defense. [applause] should i put it on for the

presentation? you. thank i am always overwhelmed in your company. now you have out done yourself with a special scarf. the cornhuskers will have a better citizen -- season this year. thank you. center forhe wilson what you continue to do for our tontry and world affairs bring thoughtful analysis and leadership to these tough issues. the world is confiscated, -- complicated, as we all know. it is not getting less competent or dangerous. your continued contributions and leadership as well as this institution are very valuable and important parts to all our wisets to find peaceful,

resolutions to these difficult problems. my friends were on the panel -- good to see you. thanks for your continued contributions as well. 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 will need everybody more than ever in our lifetimes. the world expands, opportunities expand. threats and challenges expand. unprecedented change all over the world. it is our time. we must not fail. noted, i have known jane many years. we worked together in the congress. traveled together.

judgment andng her ability and sharp analysis of issues. in particular, i have always admired and respected and particularly appreciated her directness. those of you who know jane well know she is very clear in what she believes. says a very plainly -- it very plainly. that is not bad. if there was ever a time for plain talk in the world, respectful of each other in sovereignty and our interests -- we have to be clear with each other. jane has done that. thatnk we all appreciate in our readers. jane, thank you. thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk about this issue. i know what your theme is. it is particularly timely.

thank you. the challenges facing nato today remind us of the 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 gatheredorld, and boys in the oval office to witness envoysnt truman -- gathered in the oval office to witness present troop and -- president truman ratify the north atlantic alliance. those voices called for america to relieve ourselves gradually of the basic responsibility for the security of western europe. instead, general eisenhower

arrived in paris in 1951 as the screen -- supreme allied commander. 1953, 50 navy warships have followed. they begin working together to integrate north american and european strategy, plans, and forces. commitmentsnot make in search of monsters to destroy. joined theruman treaty because he said he was convinced that nato would serve as a shield against aggression any fear of aggression. thereby letting us get on with the real business of government and society at home. joined the north atlantic treaty because it was, as he put it, a simple document that if it 1939xisted in 1914 and in would have prevented two world wars.

america was committed to nato because it would protect american interests by reinforcing the unity of translating security. neither would ultimately protect security and prosperity here at home. ultimately protect security and prosperity here at home. on the centennial of the start of world war i and weeks before of 70 th anniversary landings at normandy, nato has reminded us of its purpose. s has -- it has presented a clarifying moment. nato members must demonstrate they are as committed to the alliance as its founding members who built it 65 years ago. the must reaffirm the security guarantees at the heart of the alliance. they must reinvigorate the joint planning exercises and capabilities that are its lifeblood. they must reaffirm that from the

mediterranean to the baltics, allies are low eyes -- allies. our commitment to every ally is resolute. this comes as nato and its combat mission in afghanistan later this year. the longest, most complex operation in its history. one that has strengthened the capability and cohesion of the alliance. it comes as we prepare for a 80 in wales this fall. an opportunity to re-examine how ego militaries are trained, equipped, and structured to meet new and enduring security challenges. after more than a decade focused on counterinsurgency and stability operations, nato must balance a renewed emphasis on territorial -- as we have seen, threats to the alliance either start -- neither start nor stop. emerging threats mean fewer and

fewer places are truly out of area. balancing a full range of missions will require nato to have a full range of forces. from high-end systems for deterrence and power projection to special operations and rapid response capabilities. allied forces must also be ready , deployable, and capable of ensuring our collective security. the meeting earlier this year we must focus not only on how much we spend, but also how we spend. we invest ins -- the right capabilities for all missions. this will require the u.s. to continue prioritizing capabilities that can operate across the spectrum of conflict. against the most sophisticated adversaries. require nato -- nations to prioritize similar investments. since the end of the cold war,

america's military spending has become disproportionate within the alliance. smaller thanp is the combined gdp of the 27 nato allies. america's defense spending is three times our allies spending. over time, the lopsided burden threatens nato's integrity and capability. both european and transatlantic security. many of the smaller members have pledged to increase their defense investment. at the pentagon, i think estonia's defense minister for his renewed commitment and investment in nato. the alliance cannot afford for the larger economies and most capable allies not to do the same.

transatlantics economies grow stronger. we must see renewed commitment from all members. the actions and ukraine have abundantly value clear. i know from my conversations withthe fence ministers -- defense ministers they do not need convincing. talking amongst ourselves is no longer good enough. having participated with the ministers and having met with my counterparts, i realized that the challenges of building support. the real challenge is building support for defense investment across our governments, not just in our defense ministries. defense investment must be discussed in the broader context of the overall fiscal challenges and priorities. today,, i'm calling for the inclusion of finance ministers

and senior budget officials focused on the fence. this would allow them to receive detailed briefings on the challenges we all face. leaders across our governments must understand that the consequences of current trends in reduced to defense spending will break up the fiscal impasse. in meeting global security commitments, the u.s. must have strong, committed, and capable allies. the quadrennial defense review makes this queer -- clear. the department of defense will not only seek but rely on closer integration with our allies. in ways that will influence u.s. to teach it planning and investment. defense secretaries have called on european allies to ramp up investment. years, one of the

biggest obstacles to alliance investment has been a sense that the end of the cold war ushered in the end of history and the and to insecurity. at least in europe. ane fromd -- and in aggressionnd. thenthe united interconnected europe -- even a united and inter connected europe lives in aiding jurors world. -- lives in a dangerous world. there is no part of the world immune from the threat from military force. term, thert transatlantic alliances with -- has responded to russian actions with resolve. term, we long

ourld expect them to test commitment. future generations will know whether at this moment of challenge, we summoned the will to invest in our alliance. we must not squander this opportunity or shrink from this challenge. we will be judged harshly by history. and by future generations. waysshould find creative to find in nations around the adapt theelp them collective security to rapidly evolving global strategic landscapes. it is not only the anchor of the transatlantic alliance, it is also a model for merging security institutions around the securityemerging institutions around the world. i call for this having just

called for a defense ministerial this year. these institutions bring all of our peoples, economies, interests closer together. strengthening- these institutions must be the centerpiece of policy as we continue investing in nato. institutions develop their own unique security arrangements fromstand to benefit learning from nato's abilities. there can be no transatlantic prosperity absent security. we must also keep in mind that investing in our alliance and collective security means more than just investing in our military alone. it means the u.s. and europe must partner over the long term to bolster europe's energy security and blood russia's

energy's policies. europe is in a position to rts fromatural gas impo russia by 25%. export. has approved permits that add up to more than half of europe's gas imports from russia. economic tiesning with trade initiatives. the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. it means exercising global leadership in defense of shared values like human rights and rule of law. let me conclude by reflecting on the historic decision 20 years ago to move toward nato and mars rent -- enlargement. which is the focus of this conference. some have argued that nato enlargement invited russian aggression.

it has been cold a tragic mistake and irresponsible bluff. the historical record now speaks clearly for itself. it makes clear that nato has sought ownership, not conflict, with russia. contributedment has to stability and security. nobody wanted to replace europe's cold war dividing line with a new one. and america and its allies made an effort to convince russia our security interests were converging. clinton -- president said the measure of russia's greatness whether russia can be a good neighbor. despite the reservations of many aspiring new members, they established the partnership for peace and negotiated the nato

-russia agreement. some officials went so far as to say russia might even join the alliance. as we pursue- cooperation, we were never blind to the risks. the deputy secretary of state warned in 1995 that among the contingencies for which nato russia willared, abandon democracy and return to the threatening patterns that have sometimes characterized its history. particularly during the soviet. period. today, russia must stand ready enlargement did not invite russian aggression. it affirmed the democratic identity of the new members. disputes inld advance to regional stability.

it promoted freedom and free markets. it advanced the cause of peace. that is why nato holds the door open for aspiring members. why it must maintain partnership with nations around the world. considering the alternative, a world without nato enlargement, and the assurances of collective security, that world would have risked the enormous political and economic progress made between and within members. it would have risked that european environment in which the central and european allies were torn between europe and russia. insecurityve risked reverberating into the heart of europe. i europe more fractured and less free. thanks to american leadership and some of the distinguished leaders here today that you will hear from, that is not the world

we live in. the world is dangerous. the world is imperfect. we have challenges. but we must reflect on what we we prepare and build platforms and institutions to take on the threat to the 21st century. in 1997, i said on the senate floor that america, europe, and russia could benefit if the nations of central and eastern europe are anchored in the security 80 can offer. -- nato can offer. today the transatlantic alliance offers global security. in antidote -- in antidote to the fear of aggression that president truman warned against in 1994. it will and were into the century and the next century. but only if nations on both sides of the atlantic seas this thisfying moment -- sieze

for a fine moment. eisenhower was inaugurated as the 34th president of the u.s. theas as war weary as american public and people over the world. he had written to his wife, ma mie, that he wondered how so this is -- civilization can stand through it all. he would lie awake at night and acknowledge there was one not one part of his body that did insisted america had to remain engaged in the world. he said no nation prosecutor to you or well-being can be achieved in isolation. in 1957, eisenhower returns to paris.

at thein his address first nato summit, he connected the transatlantic commitments to the vitality of our factories and mills. our trading centers on farms and businesses. to our right at home. home.our rights at our rights to think freely and pray freely. those who doubt our commitment to a broad should consider that freedom. we must remember it is always perishable. e liked to say, it takes a lot of hard work and sacrifice by people to bring about the inevitable. without engagement, america would face more conflict, not less.

on the terms of our adversaries, not on our own terms. that is why the commitment to our allies in europe and around the world is not a burden. not a luxury. it is a necessity. and it must be unwavering. thank you. [applause] thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, secretary hagel, for a -- remarks that would inspire the cornhuskers and the entire world. few questionske a from the audience. please suggest you -- identify yourself and i would suggest you stand up so we know where you are when you are speaking. questions? way in thee back --

back. yes. i agree with the congress moment -- congresswoman on your inspirational speech. i want to know, in light of the spansion in the balkans, do you see any efforts being done to resolve the old disputes similar to the macedonia and greece dispute? know, that is in the area of the world that is working to way through difficult historical differences. you know, i think everybody about the

differences. the progress being made in those countries as they sort through those differences peacefully, imperfect, it is a challenge. to make of continuing progress. building functioning and free democratic institutions. respect other people, regardless of their religion or ethnic backgrounds. a lot of progress is being made. inhave seen that, i think, the definition of boundaries of new nationstates. as they continue to work towards a democracy. self-government in responsible ways. i am encouraged by that. i think that nato, european union, those alliances have helped. notferenced generally, specifically, to the balkans but generally what i think nato has

meant in my comments regarding -- we have fostered nato alliance, european union, we have fostered that coming together. another difference is to build forms of common interest. where can we agree? where can we build common benefit? peacefully resolve differences without building institutions and platforms of common interest. the whole point behind the coalitions of common interest build after world war ii, whether it is the u.n. tt -- i am -- ga encouraged. more to do, but i am encouraged. >> more questions. anyone up front? several in the back. how about in the very back?

i can't really see what you are wearing, so i can't describe you. i am a russian professor. about someestion historical aspects of the relationship between nato and russia. in 1945, our countries were celebrating the victory, great victory day, against fascism. did this change to russia as a country that is an enemy? what happened? >> well, i think you might want to address that to others as to what happened. i would answer your question this way.

that during speech the process of nato enlargement, and many be strong arguments that were made -- i use this as one example to answer your alltion, what happened -- different views about nato enlargement were presented. i was in the senate at the time. jane was in the house. we spent a lot of time on this issue. those of you part of this debate , whether in congress or outside, know there was a tremendous amount of focus and effort put on this. examining all points of view. what were the consequences of enlargement? should we do it? russia's response. the rightion, decisions were made to go forward with enlargement. during that process, there was a reaching out from nato members

to russia. i referenced a couple of the specifics -- partnership for peace, the russian-nato meetings. those were done specifically to russia would, i'm sure, think this was somehow a threat to them. their security. not go back in history to far to get that. i was not at the center of every decision, but i was in the senate on the foreign relations committee. i travel a lot on this issue. time andnment at the our allies at the time did reach out to the russians to try to reassure them. this was about our common interests, not about our differences.

in the last 20 years, since the implosion of the soviet union, in the had ups and downs relationship. nato-russia relationship. we have had periods of cooperation as well. we do a lot of things with the russians. we have differences. what has happened in ukraine, as i made clear in my speech, that was not nato aggression that brought those actions. do whatcontinue to civilized nations must do. wise, diplomatic, smart resolutions to differences. i think my remarks were clear here on where i think the response ability lies in this particular case. >> last russian in front --

question in front. >> mr. secretary, i am the polish bachelor -- ambassador to portugal. i appreciate your comments. just yesterday, i had a conversation with one of your predecessors. we spoke mostly about what you did today. this was a private conversation, so i will not get into it. but it went slightly different. for poland, the question of course is nato has been one of our major diplomatic accompaniments. membership in nato. 20 years ago, the full -- former polish prime minister -- we

remember how it went at the time. this was unbelievable. it created new opportunities for us. it was meant to be the guarantee of our security. and until today the in poland indicate that 60% of poles believe nato will support and defend us -- but i believe what has changed is the concept on which nato is operating has changed. i would say this was a concept of the prisoner's dilemma. you have two people who are locked in the same gel -- jail. whether they will cooperate or not, they have to resolve it. now one of those entities is no longer in the same jail. he is acting in a different way, logically.

i believe this requires new strategic concepts. how would you address that? thank you. [laughter] >> it is a simple question. [laughter] you deserve a simple answer. in my remarks, we have a nato summit. heads of state, coming up in september. your question and everything that resolves around it will be the centerpiece of that agenda. for obvious reasons. i referenced on a number of occasions in more general terms in my remarks about strategic shifts and allies.

not only financial commitments but others too jerk issues -- others for tea did issues -- other strategic issues. institutions and life do not stay status quo. yesterday is gone. we each get a day older. so on and so on. institutions are the same way. they must remain relevant to the challenge. that is the theme of my point here today. relevant to a dress the challenges that are before us and we anticipate will be in the future. that is constantly a reassessment a strategic risks and assets. the strength of alliances. not just the military. we all know you cannot separate military -- security and stability from posterity -- ropserity.ady. -- p

we are going through that process. in a world so hair triggered as we are living in, with very little margin for bad decisions, margin of error, not like it was 20 years ago. certainly 40, 50 years ago. we have to be very wise, steady, deployt wise and how we our powers. thinking not just about vijay -- about today but tomorrow. where do we want to end up? require more and more alliance relationships. every nation will respond in its own self interest. we know that. that is predictable. no nation should be held captive to an institution they belong to. every nation must protect its

own interests. those interests are wide and varied where they include mutual interests. our wisereferenced leaders on both sides of the land take after world war ii. they understood that. that is why they built these great institutions. imperfect and flawed. they cannot solve every problem. let's look at the record. here?do we go from and 65n't done too badly years. there has not been a world war iii. no nuclear exchange. there are more nations with more possibilities for freedom and opportunities and trade. still a lot to do, absolutely. as imperfect and flawed and as many mistakes as we have made, on balance, we shouldn't dismiss

what has gone right. how we built the right things. but it's a constant evaluation of strategic interests. and we very much appreciate what your country is doing and continues to do, especially in the nato relationship. frank carlucci is a very dear friend. i know -- i have often said, and frank thinks that i exaggerate -- former senators never exaggerate, you know. that if it hadn't been for frank carlucci, i'm not sure portugal would have turned out in that immediate time the way it did in 1980 and 1979. frank carlucci is an amazing individual and one of the great public servants of our time. thank you. >> please join me in thanking secretary hagel. >> thank you. thank you very much. [applause]