james foley yesterday. he said justice would be done. i wonder if you could be more specific. that is a broad statement. just military action. it will be a range of things. there is no strategy. >> we will leave this briefing at this point. it continues online at cspan.org . now to the national press club. matthew rosenberg will be talking about afghanistan. he was expelled by the karzai government. >> i will open the floor for a q&a. questions will be from credentialed media and club members. when you are recognized, please identify yourself and your organization before asking your question. no speeches, please. just a question. our guest today is "new york

times" reporter matthew rosenberg, who was expelled from kabul by the homage karzai government muster -- karzai government last week. the afghanistan government attributed the expulsion to an article mr. rosenberg had written reporting that high-level government officials were discussing forming an interim government as a possible solution treaty government -- to the countries current electoral crisis, an action that would effectively map -- amount to accrue. mr. rosenberg will discuss his own situation and the outlook for afghanistan based on his many years of reporting from the country. he has been covering afghanistan since 2008, first as the south asia correspondent for "the wall and then forl," "the new york times," which he joined in november 2011. he did a stint in afghanistan in 2002 when he was a reporter for

the associated press based in nairobi. the national press club released a statement last week criticizing his expulsion by the karzai government and welcoming the statements by the presidential candidates abdullah gula and ashraf ghani saying they would rescind the order. matthew, thank you for accepting our invitation to be a guest. i hope you have had a chance to get over the jet lag. we welcome you here today and the floor is yours. >> thanks, i appreciate that. i can't really promise i've had a chance to get over the jet lag, so i will apologize in advance for any incoherence. one of the things i've been working a lot the last few weeks is related to the story. we have been trying to track down these villagers for a bigger project we were working on that was taking forever. day after day we would get people to come down and we would sit for hours, having their guys

track these specific people we were looking for. some of these guys, we would drive them up or slide them up and they would just sit for hours and our house, tea and coffee and bread and then more tea and lunch and then talking. i learned about an expression in , and if- in pashtu anybody speaks pashtu, correct me, and and it is "how are you," and after four hours you run out of things to say and "how are you," and keep going. afghans are pretty good at talking and negotiating for quite a long time until they reach what a good negotiator does, a solution that nobody is particularly happy with but sort of works for everyone and keep things basically ok. right now what we are seeing in a couple is a total breakdown in the process. i know this morning the abdullah camp pulled out of an audit that

was to untangle the vote and the deal that john kerry had brokered. and now ashraf ghani's guys have been told, well, you guys go home, the u.n. will continue this without you. it is beginning to feel like where do they go to from here? the election is working, president karzai is leaving next week -- to where, who knows? if he really is. you are approaching a situation the fields that the worst-case scenario for afghanistan, and i don't say that lightly. i know a lot of the western press can be or is perceived to be unduly pessimistic about a place like afghanistan. i think in this case, i know personally we have tried to take it at face value and be optimistic to a degree. with each render the election, well, people are voting. this is a failure. -- this isn't a failure. sure, that's got problems, what

country doesn't? the process seems to have broken down that it doesn't seem you can walk it back, that the capacity to sit and talk forever is being dried up. partly it is that these are a series of imposed deadlines set by president karzai himself, set by the americans. we have got this 2014 date coming and in nato and they have got to that this deal done to keep the troops there. what do you do if there is no president? president karzai doesn't want to sign it. that is where my story came in. over the summer, as things have not looked to be going on a good trajectory, people within the government -- these are very senior people, people who are close to president karzai, people who have been around for years, began to think, well, we need another option. we need to think of a plan b, because the u.s. and the u.n. are married to this clinical deal that -- political deal that kerry brokered and the

candidates seem unable to compromise. what do we do in case we get to september? there is no compromise? that discussion began as early as june, and it really intensified about the middle of june, when you had afghan election commission kind of the clear preliminary results they 1.3, i think, of 1.5, about a one million vote lead, substantial lead. by most accounts, some of abdullah's supporters -- when i say "abdullah's supporters," i don't mean the mass of people who have gone out and supported him -- we are talking the screen actors -- discrete actors. people we spoke to said that they were maybe -- they were

maybe 24 to 48 hours from taking action, saying, you know what, we are going to declare our guy president, we are going to walk into the house and the ministries and provincial capitals and their security forces to shoot at us. how that happened -- had that -- they were backed by serious muscle on weapons -- that would've inched the country close to -- always seems like the chicken little scenario --, the americans are leaving, we will get to civil war -- but that would've gotten it close to that. then they create this deal. but within a few days the deal is falling apart. the audit, which was a conflict process that the u.n. and the election commission and partners in the european union were trying to spin off while moving it forward, and the political

deal come each candidate went around saying whatever their constituents wanted to hear, and it is like they were talking deals, totally different because who knew what was really in it back ? in this environment with a dangerously close march in an attempt to take power by one group of supporters and continued uncertainty with the election and nothing else, you had a number of senior officials stayed out of the election publicly, although they definitely have their likes and dislikes among the candidates. we need a plan b unless this doesn't work. these guys have done well in the last 13 years, and the last thing they want to do is see that they can get blown up. what invariably came up was world war i. nobody wanted world war i. it was going to destroy everyone, but it still happened.

that is what they were intensely worried about, and are still intensely worried about hiin kabul. this was brewing there, and it wasn't really a big secret. the political elite, everyone is talking about this. it didn't take a lot to get people to open up. the story.ut you know, i think whenever you are working abroad, it is very easy to be alarmist, use the ightly, and those are the stories that get you thrown out of countries. we tried to be as measured as possible, present this as discussions, and the people we spoke to said that their first ghani was to have a truck and abdul -- to have ashraf ghani and abdullah to make a deal. but if it didn't, here is plan b.

we presented it like that. i figure, honestly, before the story came out, that president karzai had to have known what was being said about him. it was too openly discuss. apparently, he did not. what we heard since is that he hit the roof. he called in his cabinet, threatened to fire half of them, threatened to put people in jail, said to cut it out and stop talking. then we got a phone call from the attorney general. it came from one of our afghan reporters, who is the sweetest guy. he is a bit of sickly u -- a bit obsequious. i"somebody is trying to call you." "good view give me a few minutes?" "it is the attorney general's office."

"we just want to talk to you a little bit about the story." me and my colleague, our bureau chief there, we discussed it. we have a kind of safety advisor as well. ok, we're going to go over there . casual, they are giving us all kinds of assurances all stop we are getting there and the whole city was -- this was afghan independent space of the whole city was shut down. we were told we would have a chat with a mid-level official. we get there and it is 2 senior officials, plus an advisor to the actual attorney general. it is definitely not casual. they sit us down in a room with bulletproof glass and steel doors. they meagerly start asking who the sources were peer they want to -- they immediately start asking the sources were, they want to verify who wrote the story. "i did write the story, i am the matthew rosenberg, i'm refusing to reveal my sources."

and we were not going to sign anything. is there a criminal charge, an investigation? they wouldn't tell us any of that. they went to consult with a confidential source, as they put it -- hard not to notice the irony, they are giving us a hard time about anonymous sources and then they consult with somebody and they won't tell us who he is. it was apparent we were not free to leave pretty quickly. they eventually did let us leave, and said "you have got to come back tomorrow with a lawyer." the next morning, fearing arrest -- we were not really sure, we didn't know -- we sent them a letter, partially because our lawyer was in the country, saying "we want to come back, we want to cooperate," and we meant that, "but we want our lawyer there." i realize my jet lag is kicking in. i missed a point of the story. after he left the attorney general's office the first afternoon, they didn't say anything about me not being able

noleave the country, investigation, don't worry about it. we were writing a memo for our bosses in new york, and we see a tweet from an afghan news station -- the attorney general has banned matthew rosenberg from leaving the country. huh? they didn't tell us that. it took us a few hours to confirm that that was the case. the next day we obviously didn't go, we send this letter. again, they went to the news media to say that i was being thrown out of the country. they never told us this straight. i found out later. what really struck me here -- i will go off on a little tangent here -- was also, one of the problems, problem with this election, problem with, i guess, the state in created in afghanistan, is that it has laws itmy lot of, detailed law --

has laws, very good laws, detailed laws. but they are not very respected often. there is a process in afghanistan for if you want to go out and investigate a reporter or throughout a foreign reporter. you have to go to this media and serve a notice to this reporter and the media commission would recommend it to the attorney general's office and under criminal law, they would have to send me a letter three times before they could compel me to show up at the attorney general's office for questioning. the attorney general on his own does not have the power to throw out a reporter. s, or itcountry of law is meant to be. but in this case, president karzai wanted, from what we were told, action taken, so action was taken. that is part of what goes to the problem with the election as well. you had an incredibly well-designed process to elect a new president.

a very senior you and i said that the level of transparency die said-- senior u.n. that the level of transparency there is unknown in most of the world. it makes the u.s. elections look completely corrupt. but the officials in place have to be willing to respect them, and that has not been the case today. you have a member of the election commission caught on tape committing fraud in favor of one candidate. you have an incredibly partisan environment. you have, by all accounts, the president helping support one candidate as well. throughout the process, both candidates have known that the winner ultimately has control of a vast government, and the constitution as it is written, the one that the u.s. helped the design and really help force through over the objections of players in afghanistan and some of our european partners, is an incredibly centralized government, where the president has near dictatorial powers. he hires and fires everyone from school teachers to cabinet ministers are there is vast

systems of patronage that, because he is in charge of all this time he basically presides over. it is completely winner take all, there is no room for a loser to kind of gracefully step down, because regarding who supported that loser, the loser of an election, their jobs, , the physical safety of their own family, is in many ways dependent on their man being in power. in a weird way -- i wil don't wt to present myself as a horrible victim. i got thrown out of the country. it is unusual, but it is hardly -- it is not a tragedy that one cannot recover from. but it is a pretty good example, a stark illustration of how powerful that executive is in this country, 13 years after we set up a democracy that on paper it should work. he wanted me out, so i am gone. the laws, they were in the

issue. to but even pretended to try follow -- nobody even pretended to try to follow them. a government official called to apologize. to,s something that we need we in the united states to lead this effort, need to reflect on. getting an actual estimate of how much we spent, $600 billion to $700 billion in total prosecuting the entire war. over 2300 soldiers and servicemembers lost. other civilians, far, far, far killed,e afghans thousands. before this nato conferences poster and, there is no deal there to keep the troops to train, and a list of us afghanistan democracy is in and what was

supposed to cement afghan democracies in shambles. and i guess what i am trying to figure out going forward is what role can the outside help play with afghans, and what role can afghans played to move past this? i always see a way forward when i look at what is going on there , because there is so much progress that has been made. the government officials are totally right about women educated, the value ability of cell phones or whatnot, and the gdp per capita is gone up four or five times. i remember driving around the city with these satellite phones, these little hen all, out the window of a car trying to make a phone call -- these

little handheld things come out the window of a car trying to make a phone call. now our cleaning that he who does not read or write has a cell phone -- our cleaning lady who does not read or write has a cell phon. there is tremendous progress there, but it depends on a stable central government, and that government is incredibly weak right now. even if they get a compromise out of this, and everyone certainly hopes they will him at the enormity of the problems that have to be tackled within the government, it seems impossible when you have a leader whose mandate is incredibly weak. if you have a clear leader, they are not going to emerge with a strong mandate. it said the government, problems need to be fixed, and the level of corruption -- kupchak racy is the kleptoc word liberal scientists use -- political scientists use, where number so the government are involved in business enterprises and the enterprises thrive because they have protection

from their family and the government. -- people will also say that their corruption -- zero corruption is a fantasy. it doesn't exist. i grew up outside new york city and the people who picked up my garbage were not picking up with open contracts, but the garbage got picked up, the cost to taxpayers was not that great, and when things got out of hand, the police cracked down on whoever was fixing this contract. in afghanistan, there is a contract to pick up garbage. it just doesn't get picked up. contract to build a road doesn't happen. it is just outright theft of state resources. you have senior government officials who are handing out contracts for major work, making sure their relatives and associates and networks get these contracts, and then the work doesn't get done. it is patronage at its worst because it is patronage that felt was off and not -- patronage that filters out and

not down. it is not like the cop from tammany hall got a piece of the action from boston r -- boss tweed. boss tweed and his family gets it, nobody else does. with any kind of government who can tackle the problem, i don't really know. last -- for most of the year, the taliban had not been doing well. notelections they had a manage to disrupt. there was a little bit of violence, but not major violence did a little bit before the first-round. they did not kill the candidates for anything, which is quite remarkable. even more important in afghanistan, because there is an actual law that if a candidate assumingre office, you have to restart the entire process. that law was put in place because they do voter lists, and they were worried -- let's say you have 40 candidates and they

were worried that number 41 would try to kill number 40 two move up the list. if you had to set up this law, which is good intention, but it does create risks. you have the talent and making serious push -- you have the taliban making serious push es, wide parts of the south, the north, eastern and central afghanistan, and afghan security forces are finding themselves very hard-pressed. they are not crumbling. they are decent and they have gotten better. but they need western help. they cannot function on the road yet. even if they could, they'd still need a massive amount of money. and that is not money afghanistan has. if the west doesn't stay engaged, they will fold. i don't think there's any debate about that. what little money afghanistan does have is withering, or being drained away by the election.

the election, the vast uncertainty -- this year was going to be uncertain enough for most afghans. people are disengaging, western combat troops are going home all stop that was driving the economy down already, and this has destroyed it. the tax revenue and customs revenue is down so sharply that they are probably a month or two by most accounts from being able to pay civil servant salaries. some embassies are running out of money to pay rent, and especially towns like washington and in new york, they are going to have trouble if something doesn't turn around soon. this happened last year as well. i don't know if they will get it this time. into that whole kind of mass, it all comes down to basically 2 men who are back at it. they are both pretty reasonable people, and i would be the first to thank them both for saying it would let me back in. i'm eager to go back there and i want to go back there and keep reporting.

it is a fascinating place. they come on for julie, have supporters on either side -- they, unfortunately, have supporters on the decide who are far less reasonable. you have perfect parallel conflicts. take example of northern afghanistan. on one hand, dr. ghani's vice , isidential running mate is guess, this warlord for back of a better term, lucia leader -- militia leader against the taliban and, cia proxy. he has been put out to pasture just a little bit but still has he has by most accounts been in this area not doing wonderfully well, not doing terrible, but just fair. and on the a bill aside, you have someone from the same area -- on the abdullah site, you

have someone from the same area stum, and he has been doing phenomenally well, governing one of the richest parts of the country, very powerful. dustom once the action. -- wants that action. those 2 alone are pushing those ifs to not compromise and any of them compromise, one of them is going to lose. it is a zero-sum game. they're looking to step on each businesses, whatever you want to call it could how do you get these guys to compromise? so many of the supporters are saying don't compromise, we need to keep our position, our power. i guess that is -- i guess i

should be happy i don't have to make these decisions. if the white house called and said, "what would you do," i have no idea what i would do today. it is a difficult situation, on the effects of writing news stories is the heisenberg principle -- the act of observing something changes it could by all accounts, i'm told president karzai told everybody to stop talking, shut up, i don't want to hear another line of this interim gun permit -- this interim government nonsense. those people are still planning to make a move, they are being awfully quiet about it. i don't know, but then again, i am over here in washington and the not in kabul. it adds to more uncertainty because plan b is not there. fine be carried with it -- plan b carried with a lot of risks. everybody who takes power says

they are doing it to save democracy, but we have seen time and again that it is not the case. , you have 2 now candidates who will compromise, a government who says it is leaving our next week, as president karzai said, the u.s., which insists that this setup of doing an audit and a political that the candidates cannot make work is the only way forward. got all of this, you have 13 years in a country with nearly 30 million people, and a lot of them have glimpsed what a better life could be. but they are not there yet. doesn't work -- if we are at that inflection point, they're not going to get there. even with this working it is going to be probably difficult. the country is poor, lacks any resource that can make in which quickly -- i can make it rich

quickly. reached tomise isn't move forward, you get dangerously close to the point where 13 years worth of work is very much at stake and very much at risk of just disappearing. i think on that note, i will stop blathering on and open up the questions. >> thank you. that is perfect timing. i know as a fellow journalist that we don't -- we like to report news, not to make it, and i would say for my 40 years as a foreign correspondent and now teaching at gw, matthew, i greatly respect how you are handling the public side of your work come even though you much prefer to be behind the computer. we used to say behind the typewriter. but thank you for coming, and the floor is open. please identify yourself and the organization you are with and asked your question.

yes, please? one minute. i know we have a good setup here. i was looking for a hand-held mic -- >> from georgetown university. i was also in afghanistan for 16 months. i appreciate the fact that even though you painted a grim picture of what is happening in afghanistan, that there is a lot of progress, like you just mentioned, is going on. my question to you is, even let's say the situation becomes unstable, don't you think afghan people are different now because the young , a freethere is a media press, young people who are very educated and they are going towards democratic transition? it is going to be different, they are to stand up for themselves should i would like to get your view on that. >> that is a very good point, and in the cities that is absolutely true. that is the promise of this

election, this year, that you are giving people the space. young people -- when we say " young," we are talking eagle into their 20's and 30's as well -- who want to build a better country. even these guys i have known for years are operating like you would imagine an american political operative to operate. [ringtone] that is an awesome ring tone. even to the point where you're getting on an airplane to write about the candidates, they try to spin you on what you should and shouldn't write about, and the person you are not to write about sits down next to you and talk for a while. they're not that great at managing it. you have this younger generation, but that is an urban phenomenon. that hopefully will grow and change. that is how cultures and society change. but right now it is pretty small.

if you have a situation that is destabilized, where you have armed groups on each side of the political divide, plus the i don't knowng in, if the critical mass behind those people is their to sustain them saying no. in rural afghanistan you don't have that set of people yet. you are not there were you have villagers who know much more than what they have on their back. they are peasants in the tourist sense of the work, people without disposable income, without education. you have whole provinces where acy rates arer in the 10s. that will not engender modern generation, i fear. they would be

desperate to avoid -- including some of those actors, because they have to know that you look around, people who would be leading any kind of fight are credibly wealthy. they've had a great 13 years. they have houses in dubai, fighting dogs. .hey have done well any kind of conflict will destroy what they have got, will kill their source of open power -- till their source of wealth and power. they are desperate to avoid it but they know that if their guy loses, they will lose it anyway, so why not fight for it? that is a dangerous situation to be in. and that is the hardest thing about afghanistan right now, and observing it -- and writing about it for foreigners and the rest of the world, that you have that split between a scenario that is pretty optimistic, a scenario that could go pretty well, and one that is fairly pessimistic and grim.

there's not a lot of middle ground there. that can be confusing to explain to people. go this way, not bad could go this way, terrible. -- sort oft of that, that, sort of terrible, in the middle. >> do you view what has happened to you any reaction in the u.s. and around the world, do you view your situation as exceptional, or do you think edent for what is likely to happen to reporters in the future, not only foreign reporters, but treatment of the press within afghanistan itself? evidence, we have to view it as exceptional right now. the respect for the freedom of the press and the government has been tremendous. it is one of the real achievements of the last 13 years. they have -- i think 120

newspapers, television channels, i diversity of opinions. more important, you have government officials who are willing to shut down the really nasty parts of the free press. poshxample, when a very june -- pashtun nationalist tv ontion had pashtun general saying that only pashtuns should be here, really supremacist stuff, karzai fire the guy. the tv channel that was trying to recruit staff and advertises from one of its rivals, funded head went over there and said "we want a but that kindice of thing, cut it out." this is the first time we have

had -- this isn't the first time we have had run-ins with the palace. president karzai is really good at handling the press, too. i remember a year and a half ago we did a story on this slush fund that the cia had been paying for, dropping off bags of cash at the palace for, god, it must be over a decade now. that was used to pay off palminteri in war loads. --ch parliamentarian palminterian warlords could karzai, not only did he not denied, yet is full press conference -- i had this is fore, "if all this good things, when i do it on the books?" departmentate wants to meet cash, i will take

that, too." for the most part they are good at handling the press. but this highlighted a power struggle within the government and it is hard to come down on people you off worked with and trusted for years. some of the closest people to you and the country. provided a convenient external target to direct all that anger, so they threw me out. i think the danger here is that once you kind of get a sense of ,ow weak a class of people are you realize that we can do more of this. to dofety and our ability our jobs depends a lot on the willingness of people in power to play along with that. but when they don't want us to do it, we don't really have a lot of options. even if we wanted to fight to defend ourselves, there are not that many of us -- a few dozen at most. if we put up a fight we will

last about 10 minutes. some of my colleagues are not in great shape. that is the danger here, that the government, whoever takes power next, will be nice for a while. me, it makesy gim them look democratic could but when they start getting stories about things they have done wrong and things that people in government are doing wrong, they have seen how easy it is just to get rid of somebody, and for the foreign press, it always struck me as odd that you would want to keep me there to question the because then it is a story every day. throw me out, you get a few days of bad press. they have seen a now and it is a real risk of going forward. i think dr. ghani and dr. abdullah are committed to the idea of a free press. >> [indiscernible] maybe this is a completely naïve question, but if you found out

you were being expelled by the news media, why didn't you just ignore them? >> we were absolutely going to ignore them. we were thinking about it. we had a long debate about that the whole night. first we didn't know the most so what do we do? i will start packing and taste it and we were supposed to interview the president on friday -- i will start packing in case. we were supposed to interview the president on friday. this is the first time we have interviewed in years. he finally said ok. that obviously got canceled. editor wasenior getting on a plane, actually d.c., when this whole thing broke. by the time she landed, i was being thrown out of the country, ul, they she got to kab canceled the interview on her, so it was really a waste for

her. we sat there debating what do we do. we were having dinner with ambassadors and officials and we were trying to organize this dinner party and that is possibly being thrown out of the country, what are they going to do, will they arrest you, and in the middle of the dinner party, pickup trucks full of police show up with civilian officials at the door. i run into the house to try to stay in case they were there to arrest me. my colleagues go outside and they give us this expulsion order -- they couldn't even spell my name right but i don't read pashto, but i'm told it is filled with grammatical mistakes in outline which -- in that language, too. this is from the attorney general's office. there's nothing awful about this. maybe we should just ignore it. why don't we stay and see what happens? one of the good things about this story is we have good

sources in government and we also had senior western officials have dinner with us there, who advised us that if you do stay, our understanding is that they're going to throw you in jail and they will try you for sedition -- there aren't bunch of national security laws -- there are a bunch of national security laws they can try you wonder. even how casually the government and attorney general had broken thought itaws, w was best not to risk to go to trial when we are dealing with an administration that at this point did not seem to respect its own laws, and that it was best to fight it from the outside. >> retired from georgetown university. i want to know, over your years of reporting on afghanistan, was there a point when it was more "progressive," and

it has been moving downward -- than it has been moving downward? >> absolutely, especially in 2002. beingaliban were mostly wrapped up and pushed out and it was incredibly helpful. the sighta time when of an american bomber overhead was a good thing. they were chasing away to people who are making your life miserable. that went on for a while. even as late as 2008, 2009, people were pretty optimistic. even now, as another member of the audience pointed out, there is still a tremendous amount of optimism kind of built up there. people who want something better and think that the possibility of something better could happen . but on top of that, from 2009 onwards, as the surge came in, you had in some parts of the country tremendous spikes in violence brought on by fighting, basically.

before,formed -- one the taliban were in control, it was not much violence because there was uncontested control. you had this tremendous rise of violence and casualties. which, another part of the surge was to clean up government. one of the byproducts of cleaning up the government was you start looking into all the dysfunction and corruption in the government and people like me start writing out more about we did not have the tools to investigate the government, but when the drug enforcement agency is training the afghan government on wiretaps, we find the details on things we did not necessarily know. i created a perception among a lot of afghan -- that created a perception among long a lot of afghans, too, that things aren't very good. they didn't know the details, and now they had the details. you have gotten to this point -- a -- i don't want to

schizophrenic approach, but you have people with 2 minds where people are hopeful for the future and they think things can happen and it is a moderate country and people are free to do as they please as long as you don't inflict it on others. but at the same time, the country where people look around and see a lot of violence, where everybody has been touched by this war, where jobs are drying up, there was a massive economic -- essentially 13 years of massive stimulus spending going away. there's a lot of apprehension for the future because of that. on top of that, this goes back to the question also of young ,eople and the forward thinking that you have had this great edifice of people pushing for rights of women and minority groups and personal civil rights in the last 13 years. now, the edifice that supported that, the western rights

community, is being pulled back, simply because of the west pullback, people get pulled back. there is a critical mass of afghans to sustain this bush? i don't know. because you have the old guard inside the government pushing that, that maybe some of these rights aren't that great, maybe we can push back. are women going to be able to do what they've done in big cities, go to work, do things? you go to northern afghanistan or western afghanistan, women have jobs, they are getting as kim, families are out at night, totally fine. it seems like a city in central asia. go to conduct our -- go to kandahar, you barely see women on the streets, and if there are they are in burqas. a lot of the optimism depends on where you are in afghanistan at any given time. >> [indiscernible]

i want you -- i wanted to ask you, both 10 today -- both candidates, do you think they are going to affect the final results, the possibility of a kind of coup d'état? also, what is next for you? if you could come back to afghanistan to report, or what they have told you? >> i don't know if they would want to accept a final was all that doesn't have them -- final result that doesn't have them winning. throughout this process, western and afghan officials involved say that when the candidates talk about legitimate outcomes, thatseem to mean winning, each side seems to think that the only legitimate outcome is their victory. that is a dangerous place to be in, and i am not quite sure -- the abdullah guys have made clear they don't believe the audit is that all valid.

they're not coming back into it. if they don't win, are they willing to accept it? i don't know. the ghani camp has had the luxury of being ahead, of being the presumed winner for so long, that they have not had to state anything loudly, but you get the impression that if something were to be reversed, they would see this as the international community robbing them of the election. both sides see it that way. no matter what happens, the u.s. is going to be blamed by thi -- blamed for this. a lot of the u.n. people admit that part of their job is to take shots. given the level of international commitment that will be there for a while, it is not a great thing when everybody is saying the foreigners screwed this up. the foreigners have not helped, but everybody has created problems there. it is not a unique one set of factors that has messed things up.

as for me, we are hoping that the candidates are being straightforward. we believe they were when they said they would let me back in. we will certainly go back there and see what happens. i had a colleague who was thrown out of pakistan last year, and i was chased out of there a few years ago when i was at the "journal," less officially. one thing that makes it hard there is the level of mistrust and conspiracy. among conspiracy theory the pakistan public that when the news media or government officials call you a spy, it can be harder to recover from that and work safely in pakistan again. in afghanistan, that has not been the case. i think they call this evil -- the evil "new york times," they called me a spy in gauged in espionage. the reaction as far as we can tell has mostly been scorn. it is like on social media, it is split between crazies on

either side. that is probably a good sign. i will probably work there safely again. look, i would love to go back. after six years there, to be missing this kind of final event drives you nuts. but we will see what happens. i will take the candidates at their word now. >> any regrets about the articles? >> no, not at all, not one bit. it is a bit of a bummer to be thrown out of the country for a story that ran on page a7, but it happens. matthew, we are very grateful for you taking the time. you could well be resting at home with your family, but you chose to, down here. we're very appreciative. we have a tradition where we honor guests, distinguished guests, the traditional national press club mug.

i believe president karzai spoke here years ago and i think that if you go into his office, maybe there is one there. but if not, you have this one on your own and we thank you so much, and we wish you all the very best for the future. >> thank you. [applause] i would like to be able to report that i saw this in president karzai's office. i will definitely bring it to the "new york times" bureau if i go back. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] >> see this national press club event any time on our website. go to cspan.org. more live coverage coming up

today. live at 4:00 p.m., 2 former digital and technology strategist from the obama and romney residential campaigns will discuss how innovation has changed how campaigns are run and what we can expect for the future. it will talk about their insights for the midterm races, fromhey will be moderating a technology standpoint. that is from george washington university. that begins at 4:00 p.m. eastern . we have been keeping tabs on members of congress during the break. thompson sanford -- congressman sanford bishop from georgia talks about supporting american jobs. also, this from congressman steve southerland of florida, "proud to welcome defense contractors to panama city and show them the benefits of relocating to northwest florida." says to patrick murphy

a company that manufactures led lighting, as part of the florida district jobs tour. comments from members of congress. next week -- >> this weekend on the c-span networks -- tonight on c-span, native american history. day on saturday, live all coverage from the national book festival science pavilion. evening, from bbc scotland, a discussion on whether to end a political union with england. with the chief justice of the second circuit court of appeals, sharing his approach to interpreting laws passed by congress. on c-span2 tonight at 8:00 p.m., "in depth" with congressman ron paul, then on saturday, coverage from the national book festival history and biography civilian --

pavilions, collins with authors, withsunday, "after words" william burrows. tonight, a documentary on the apollo 11 moon landing. saturday on the civil war, general william tecumseh sherman's atlanta campaign. lawsy, a look at election and bush versus gore. find our schedule at cspan.org and tell us what you think about the programs you are watching. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> next week at the u.k. will host this year's nato summit in wales. yesterday, analysts at the center for strategic and

international studies previewed at the gathering, with full focus on the ukraine-russia crisis. people are heading to the nato summit -- president obama will make a stop in estonia and meet with baltic leaders. togood morning, and welcome the center for strategic and international studies. i welcome you all. i promise we won't have any interns tweeting this alive. other than that, i would like to move on with our senior vice president for europe. she is going to kick it off. >> andrew, thank you so much. good morning, everyone. great to see such a full room. it seems only like a few weeks ago that i was talking with many of you about the president's

trip to europe, and we now return to europe again. the president was there just in january, traveled to warsaw, brussels, and normandy. i will begin -- i will do the trick in order, so we will begin with estonia, and then move on to the nato summit discussion. i will do sort of an overview and give you some of the context of that visit, and then there will be much more details on defense capabilities, and can also talk about, obviously, the global complexity today. we will span the world a little bit beyond the president's trip to europe. this is the second time an american president has traveled to thailand for the first time was president george w. bush in november 2006 come up prior to a nato summit that was being held at that time. although president obama just saw the estonian president just

last august, he met with the 3 baltic presidents in the oval office in august, he spoke with them by phone in march just prior to russia's annexation of crimea. den mett -- president bi with the baltic leaders in march. as you can tell, the crisis over ukraine has brought to the fore a deep engagement between president obama and the baltic leadership. hown't begin to tell you critical it is that the newident visits nato's front line. i was preparing for this discussion that in march, as the president was discussing with baltic leaders, vice president biden was visiting, they talk about america's unwavering commitment to the baltic states. if you notice last week's nsc

press release regarding the trip, they now use the word "ironclad commitment." i don't know if you have seen "ironclad" very often in presidential statements. i haven't. i think it is important to highlight. "this trip is a chance to reaffirm our ironclad commitment to item five as the foundation of manato." why ironclad? there is always a great fear in the public states that if push came to shove, nader would have their back. -- nato would have their back. it is clear not only with words but with solidarity, we have put u.s. soldiers and hardware in the baltic states that i had the opportunity to be in tallinn in april, participating in a conference, and it was the day before soldiers were due to arrive in estonia. my own impression was that it was like the estonians led out there brass.

they came, and that was the most meaningful and significant event that u.s. soldiers had arrived in estonia. putting this into context, this is why the president's visit to tallinn is so important, not only to provide continued reassurance, to speak to the baltic nations, to get their feedback on the current situation, but to be a physical .resence in the baltic states i'm sure they're looking forward to hearing president obama's thoughts on america's future military presence in the baltic states, particularly the potential repositioning of equipment. i will talk about that in a second about nato. just to give you historical context, just on saturday was the75th anniversary of molotov ribbentrop pact between hitler and stalin that carved up central europe.

i note that anniversary because it was also the 25th anniversary on saturday of what is called the baltic way. that is when on august 23, 1989, you had literally hands across the baltic states for over 2 million latvians, estonians, and the lithuanians held hands across the 600-kilometer measure across the baltic states, and it was to seek independence, to fight for freedom. this historical memory here is so very fresh, and i want you to have that context when you go to -- if you are traveling with the president to estonia. this is why events in ukraine, the annexation of crimea, this is exactly why this is a so palatable. the baltic states feel that history is repeating itself, and they want to be sure that the history of the 20th century does not become a history of the 21st century.

it is within that context that the president will arrive. we know he will meet with the estonian president, prime minister, the three baltic states. i'm sure that the white house will have more details. we hear that perhaps the president will give a speech, we hope. we will keep our fingers crossed. it will be imported to hear the president of a message about the way forward in the region. -- and certainly hearing that he will visit with the u.s. forces stationed in estonia. it will be incredibly important that as a final note to remember, estonia is a dramatic success story. as a former soviet state am a you are looking at one of the most modern european economies, that puts e-governance and e-forms to shame, flat tax dynamic. it is a commitment to du and the nato, the eu and

an outstanding example. if you are on the trip, you will enjoy tallinn very much. let me briefly segue to the present's -- presidents next stop, cardiff and wales. the main theme will be nato's unified message these are the russia and ukraine -- vis-a-vis russia and ukraine. at the nato summit in chicago in 2012, that summit was overshadowed by the euro crisis, and this summit is, in fact, quite overshadowed not only by ukraine, but obviously, events unfolding in iraq, syria, and libya. this is the secretary-general mussen's last summit as the secretary-general, and nato will be welcoming the former norwegian prime minister as the new secretary general. in some ways, this summit represents the last summit on afghanistan, a subject matter that

there is great uncertainty about footprint resolute support, and that weighs very markily on the question over the there will be bilateral support agreement between the united states and afghanistan, and what nato's assurances will be in the individual countries as they leave forces behind for training purposes. this will not be a summit about enlargement, as the chicago summit in 2012 was also not a summit about enlargement. there the nato alliance, is not consensus about opening the door. there will be encouraging words, the open-door policy remains , but there is no political appetite to enlarge nato. the newsmaker here at the summit will be about nato's collective

europe, in central northern europe, in the baltics. it will focus on nato's readiness action plan. has givenary-general some interviews outlining this. nato's going to be response to the ukraine crisis, but starting to move into a long-term thought. this is not an issue within the alliance. there is total agreement. permanentsought a nato presence in their countries. allies, particularly the germans, are concerned that this runs against the 1997 russian-nato act. they are no longer a new members

after 15 years. this package will include an ,nhanced presence in poland where nato has a multinational corps northeast. right now the germans, the danes have taken a leadership role in developing that. it will be called a persistent presence rather than a permanent presence. these are were choices to allow greater comfort within the alliance, but this will be a permanent rotating presence for the foreseeable future. there will be lots of discussion about individual members increasing their defense spending. we have said this for the past 15 years at every nato summit that had ever been heard -- been. forth a robustng military modernize nation

program. the baltics are trying to -- we need our allies to do much, much more. ukraine, the president will be at the summit. there will be a nato-ukraine summit. willwe are hearing, there be an announcement about some that funds for ukraine will support the ukrainian military logistics command and control, cyber defense and trying to help defray costs to support the military. we will see how details come i will segueat red this to task. there will be a discussion at the summit on events as they are unfolding in iraq, syria, allied .upport for the kurds

there will be discussion on the allied and sidelines of support in these emerging operations. i went to give you a context as the president arrives in wales. exactly two weeks before a scottish referendum. let's just say we have been watching some very lively debates as recently as monday about the referendum right now. there is a 10% gap between the .es and the no votes yes votes are 43%. the president addressed this issue in june after his bilateral meeting with david cameron. i thought the formula was about right. the president said the united states has a deep interest in making sure one of our closest

allies we will ever have remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner. send -- hasten to add it is for the scottish people to decide. as a side note, congress has waited on this as well on a house resolution that said we support a united, secure, and prosperous united kingdom as essential for u.s. national security priorities in europe. clearly, huge implications for nato should the scottish people decide to vote for independence. there are questions about british nuclear deterrence that is based in scotland, whether scotland would seek to become a

nato member. all of this is a very dramatic actor up where your security environment has turned upside down. never thought nine months ago it would be focusing on a robust defense posture in northern europe, but that's where we are today. good morning. i'm kathleen hicks. i direct the international security program here. things,weep up a few also going on at the summit that i want to highlight. just touching on afghanistan, the big question is who will the afghan government send to the summit. 2012 the in opportunity for the afghans to participate. president karzai came at that time. we have a congested -- contested election in afghanistan. in the last 24 hours we have had

the threat of one candidate intentionally pulling out of that contested election. there's a lot of turmoil in afghanistan for the nato summit. ofis becoming quite a crisis who will come and represent the afghan government, will it be the two potential next president? president karzai has said it will not be him. and then there could be a different representative from the afghan government. making sure someone from the afghan government comes will be an important signal for nato, that it is continuing its commitment to afghanistan and it is not a rearview mirror issue. another item to note that is on the summit agenda is that the nato charter isn't going to be updated. the intention is for nato to update its charter to include cyber security as something to become an under article five. i suspect the language will be very vague. it will not be immediately clear what that will mean in terms of response that nato

might have. it will be notable that cyber will be specifically called out as being covered under article five, which is the galactic defense article of the nato charter. a couple things on the readiness action plan that heather spoke to. the terminology they are using -- obviously they like alliteration approach, and it is hard to say. the future -- not even a warm basing, but a hot basing approach, will they build off this polish facility that nato already has or a close to the german border, convenient to , and that is the place

where we will begin to prepetition more equipment to have forces flow through quite routinely. the big question on the u.s. side across nato is how the u.s. will support that with the strain on our own forces is around the world, and how much commitment the u.s. will put forward into eastern europe, if there is anything the baltics do trust within nato, it is a u.s. commitment. they will be pushing hard that that nato contingent will have a heavy u.s. signal and it. , if is what they trust most there is a u.s. component, that there is skin in the game in terms of activity. another initiative coming out of this summit is what is being called the defense capacity building initiative. this relates to the point that there will not really be an enlargement discussion per se, but there is an emphasis given the ukraine crisis on how nato

will work with eastern and central european countries and those out of area partners. nato has partners like brazil and others that it is trying to work with, columbia. one of the initiatives going forward into this summit will be , how do we help other nations whilesecond defenses parenthetically not allowing them into the alliance. it will be interesting to see what kind of promises or commitments nato makes in terms of advising and support to other countries, particularly those in central and eastern europe who will not be put forward for membership. csis draft work we have two data shows only four countries are at that level right now. u.s., u.k., greece and estonia. the question has always been

whether that benchmark matters anymore. the greeks meet the 2%, but you would be hard-pressed to point to a lot of high-quality capability that we are relying on a nato. there will always be this conversation around what is the right measure to determine how effective allies are in their commitments to nato. i don't think you will see an incredible advancement in the debate, but he will continue and i think the 2% benchmark is increasingly irrelevant and will become even more clearly so in the initiatives that roll out. moving on beyond europe, the crisis in iraq and syria and elsewhere in the middle east -- gaza, israel -- those are very much on the minds of the nato members. rasmussen is working hard to keep it off the formal agenda. i think you will see something

anyten in the communiques, public statements coming out of leaders, certainly in the bilateral discussions that happen on the sidelines of the summit. but nato itself is trying to ensure it is staying out as an alliance, any kind of military intervention with regard to the crisis and iraq. -- in iraq. you most certainly will see a restatement of the standing commitment to defense of turkey as a nato ally, should it feel threatened. turkey has called for article for consultation -- four consultation. there will be an effort to assure the turks and even others along the southern borders of nato that the alliance is standing by those members. there will have to be a neck meant that individual european are taking action.

those are the biggest outside issues. there has been some discussion about the asia rebalance before. certainly before the ukraine crisis and how the asia rebalance on the u.s. side should affect nato, should nato that one -- while point may have been a major discussion for this summit, i think it will fall much lower in the agenda of those sidebar conversations because of the press of business with regard to afghanistan, certainly russia and eastern europe elements and now the middle east. let me stop there for questions. >> let's start with julie. >> i'm julie from ap. have a question on afghanistan. it seems from the u.s. perspective the obama administration is giving the afghans a lot of leeway to figure out their politics before saying they would have to pull the troops out.

i'm wondering what the perspective is from nato members, the alliance as a whole and the individual countries that could keep a commitment after this year. there is no one nato. let me break it down to the u.k., western european view. have accurately capture that. i think where being respectful to the afghan political process. there's a lot of nervousness under that, and particularly on the military side in times of the timelines associated with if there is not a bsa for the u.s. there would have to be a very stressful time line to pull out troops. i think because both of the candidates have been committed to the bsa, we are playing a little bit of a game of chicken here. the bottom line is you will

continue to get this sense from those who are looking to maintain commitment, including the united states, of we respect the afghan political process mostly because we believe it will end up with a bsa and a nervousness that should something happen there would have to be a relatively rapid drawdown. the larger question really is about the hangover, the shadow of what is happening in iraq right now, in the sense of whether that should change the calculus with regard to the timeline commitment in afghanistan. clearit is much less right now. the united states and certainly nato allies are holding the line in terms of their decisions to ramp down on a timetable. but there is also tying in that timetable for a change of position on that should the afghan political process stalled, or other changes in the

afghan security environment cause a change of approach in nato to be warranted. >> in some ways, the european allies have been in constant wait mode. first they had to wait until the administration announced how many forces it was leaving. that would be weighing on its decision. now they are waiting for this, and they will then wait for the united states to see what happened. they are the last in the chain in some ways to respond. i think that is completely contingent, even that commitment, on how all of the sequential problems happen. again, what i'm hearing from allies -- there is a concern on force protection, particularly in the north and how far are they going to be able to be in and what support are they going

to have. there's a lot of questions. they feel like they don't have to act right now. they have to wait until all of this works its way through. thanks. two questions. heather, you mentioned the european security environment has been turned upside down. can you talk a little bit more about how frustrated they are that they can't ever follow the agenda that they set, they're always reacting to things like -- they were in chicago. president obama, his leadership is very much under fire domestically. is there a particular challenge for him at this summit? is there something the allies are looking for that we should be looking for? >> yes. every person who has ever worked in government, you have the most well-planned agenda, and then invents change the calculation.

down, and quite -- noy, the predictions one predicted this. no one predicted a portion of europe would be annexed in 2014. we would have a war between russia and ukraine, and i think it is time we begin to state very clearly what this is. to reallyrequired adapt and change fairly dramatically. should thank nato vladimir putin because it was really searching for its purpose and having a fairly significant identity crisis as people were looking towards the summit 9, 12 months ago. it has now not only been repurposed, it has been reinvigorated. you're seeing fairly extraordinary turns of events with this repositioning of equipment.

in thesence by nato baltic states, in poland for the foreseeable future -- that would never have been part of the calculation were it not for vladimir putin's actions. the challenge here is that not all of the alliance feels the same way. that is what we are dealing with. this is palatable and the baltic states and poland. it is certainly not palatable in other central european countries like hungary. we have an evenness, and you also have the french government continuing its sale of the [indiscernible] you will hear strong messages of solidarity at nato and unity of purpose. there are some very clear discordant notes about what this thread is long-term.

we have to begin to start focusing on what the long-term policy is here. we are dealing with the hour by hour, what is the action, what is the humanitarian convoy -- we are dealing with the moment i by moment, andnt we need to start putting together a new crisis formulation. on leadership, it is a great question. as it has historically will be looking for strong u.s. leadership. an alliances response at its core, it must be the united states. that is the ultimate security guarantee in the minds of many. that is the article five commitment. that is why my estonian friends let that breath out that they were holding in for many weeks. we cannot do it alone. we do now need the rest of the alliance to step forward, and on

leadership, a think what we have seen through this crisis has been the fact that angela merkel has actually come to the fore as a critical leadership voice in europe towards russia. voice inry complicated policy because of german , and this is acs dramatic change of events that no one had anticipated. the president does have another very strong leader that can help him propel this policy, and i think that should be noted as well. >> let's go to michael. >> [inaudible]

why do they want to downplay this? does it get too involved in european domestic politics? what is going on here? , the individual european countries are wrestling with this. obviously there has been a dramatic debate within the u.k. about the foreign fighter problem. we have also seen this concern in germany, france, and elsewhere. being addressed through intelligence channels, bilateral channels. that is not a discussion that is going to be a nato discussion per se. the bilateral meetings, a lot of conversations are going to be taking place. within europem

can be as significant as an external challenge. >> i think that's right. if i had to guess on the rationale there, they do have a strong agenda they want to push through that is russia-focused, that is focused on nato. i do think that they want to drive that. it is clear to rasmussen's statements, even cameron's pieces that have come out, they are driving towards making this summit matter. he wants to leave it with a strong sense of accomplishment russia-ukraine issue and how it affects eastern europe. i think it is as simple as that. i'm sure there's a lot of divisiveness in terms of how nato should get back involved in

.raq i think he wants to stay focused on that russia message and it is not quite right yet for a summit. would you exclude in the long run and a combined nato action against isis? there are some countries that have interest in the united states. turkey, of course. , which promised weapons to the kurds. is that totally excluded? >> no. the summit's agenda, but it is a leitmotif, if you will be happening trade -- happening. we are living in real-time. nato will be a piece of that.

i think that is something for the north atlantic council i'm sure is thinking how do they put this on their agenda, how do they address this. it has been on their agenda in terms of the syria piece of it. is this islamic state transnational crisis. i have no doubt that nato will take it on. whether there would be nato sanctioned action i live be a, i think it is open ended but i would not take it off they -- a is open, i think it ended but i would not take it off the table. >> thank you. heavy nato allies anticipated therussian response -- have nato allies anticipated the russian response to a permanent rotating presence which is east , ande former iron curtain

then what is the strategy to deal with that or will they continue to just respond to crises after crises? is there a strategy? the second question is, your thoughts on the decision by putin not to attend the conference. the allies have already fully anticipated a very strong russian reaction. this is what has caused some hesitancy by nato allies to actually put forward a more robust presence because they are very fearful of provoking russia. i return to the reason, the only reason that nato is doing this is in response to russia's actions. this is not a unilateral nato discussion. it is a response to instability on nato's border.

it is seen as reassuring allies and sending a clear message that will defend its members. but i am sure the reaction will be strong. it will probably provoke additional russian forces along in this area. we will see a buildup on both sides. and is what many analysts the media will say, we are back to the cold war. there are cold war elements of this and this will be one of them where you will see a response, but we have to react to the instability. it ensuresly, stability. it does not increase instability. reviewing and looking in 2006, the last time a u.s. president has visited estonia, i

was reading the press clippings. in 2006, it was all about how to foment russia-nato partnerships. we were talking about how to create a stronger nato-russia relationship. literally over the last 6, 9 months, the picture has so completely changed. has tried, i'm sure with many faults and many problems, not a perfectly implement it policy, but nato has tried to be a partner with russia i clearly that has failed. >> -- russia, and clearly that has failed. >> this will be about reassurance inside of nato's borders and very explicitly to buildingp down partnership capacity approach to the non-nato members is a way of signaling to russia exactly that

defense of intent. the types of equipment, the types of exercises, activity that nato rolls out as part of this approach will matter in terms of the signaling to the russians. ity can choose to message however they like. i'm sure nato will be working hard to determine what looks defensive in terms of a rotation. >> [inaudible] secretary gates in his last speech to nato used very harsh language, talked about a two-tiered alliance. recently the vice president has said things about this.

livingur countries are up to that commitment. in light of our own drawdown of forces, we are tired after 10 years, how serious is the u.s. going to push this message of trying to push these 80 countries to step up their commitment? -- nato countries to step up to their commitment? in many ways, if your talking points are not working, it's a time to change your talking points. secretary gates' farewell message with a two by 4 -- you have to do something. the ukraine crisis has been a wake-up call. whether the europeans will hit the snooze button or not, i don't know. themt has certainly shaken

that they have allowed their military defense spending to atrophy to a point where they are now vulnerable. they did understand that the u.s. residents and europe was rapidly diminishing. in europe was rapidly diminishing. i think this whole 2% -- you can spend 2%, but as the greeks do for territorial defense it is not something that nato can use. in estonia, it is a small country, but 2% is great. it has to be meaningful. be purchasing nato interoperable equipment that can be used for collective purposes, but also for crisis management. this is where the isis role -- nato cannot swing totally from

-- we are going to go territorial collective defense. nato has to keep that. term. fewer and fewer allies are able to have that spectrum. summits, thesese defense capability initiatives, smart defense -- we keep rebranding it, but there's very little to .2. theye now is the time realize no more. we have to put forward and we have to get serious about this. it has started a conversation i have not heard in a long time in europe. is not onlynomy fragile, it's highly vulnerable. there is going to be limits to what europe can do. >> i agree with heather. the question is not whether burden sharing, however nicely put or smart defense, which has disappeared off the lexicon in the last several months, are put

forward. a message about sharing burden, sharing costs. it is whether the 2% peace continues to be the particular two by four used. the united states and others will continue to be pressing allies to commit on their defense commitments. isther that constitutes a 2% a different issue. is thefind encouraging press inside the defense community across nato. the press there will be on concrete initiatives that show capability. that is for something like the readiness action plan could prove out. if it is just the u.s. and the germans and the u.k. and the french, that is not a great step

forward for the alliance but at least it is somewhat reassuring to the eastern european allies. plan andh this action other concrete steps they start to pull in capabilities from some of these other countries that have been less likely to be contributors, that will be meaningful in terms of a summit outcome. >> in the back here. >> in the light of the ukrainian crisis, do you think hermit nato bases inent nato europe are necessary, or rasmussenfor announced yesterday would be efficient? >> what nato is trying to is the fact that russia

has demonstrated very ably rapid military mobilization. that is the area where nato needs to be within its own alliance. the idea of pre-positioning are putting more of a rotational basis, ready forces is in some ways to respond to that mobilization. it is a defensive. it is not an aggressive. it is to be ready. the focus of [indiscernible] to both land, be air, and sea. it is to look and engage at how nato can be ready. -- you will also see much greater focus on the response rapid forces.

it is all about quickness, and having equipment pre-positioned their to be able to use. we have not believe this has been an issue for a decade plus. playing catch-up a little bit. it's not a provocative step. -- estonia is literally almost a stone's throw away from finland. this week alone, there have been two russian air incursions into finnish airspace. finishesterday, the prime minister starting to openly talk about nato membership. never contemplated. we have to look at this from a regional perspective. there are vulnerabilities here. this helps nato members, but as well non-nato members in understanding there is a presence there to support their very shifting security environment. >> let me just add, the types of

feels it needsto to improve itself upon our these hybrid threats, these unusual, unconventional approaches, whether it is from russia or elsewhere in the world. the russians in the ukraine crisis have shown themselves adept at those. estonia itself felt in the cyber end of that some years ago. the types of capabilities that too needs today are going look different than they would have during the cold war. you would not be looking for large formations of ground n and stationing themselves in eastern europe. that's not the most effective use of nato capability tdoay. -- today. it is about that rapid reaction capability. the nato response force, the u.s. committed in 2012, a stronger commitment to nato response force us. be irf is what nato will

focusing on here, which is a quick reaction element in the thatlong with the aircraft are stationed elsewhere in europe, can they come in and be positioned in crisis, and then of course the naval access on the baltic side where we already have some u.s. and other capabilities there. sufficiency today looks a lot different then one would have thought of in the curled war. we are not looking to go to war with russia. prevent anyng to kind of unusual, unconventional approaches that might come after nato territory or nato stability , and look for ways that nato can help those alliance members .eel secure and be secure >> i know that the u.s. respect

every country's decision of making their own decision as far as joining nato or not. from the u.s. point of view, the neutrality of sweden and finland -- has it lost its credibility? >> let me begin by saying that both sweden and finland have been next ordinary partners to nato. joining in afghanistan, sweden and libya, operation unified protector. we have next ordinary partnership between nato and sweden and finland. clearly the situation in begun aneurope has incredibly active debate within finland. i would say the conversation is more robust and finland today than it is in sweden, perhaps anduse of swedish elections

that needing to resolve itself. it is for every country to decide. that is why nato, the open-door policy -- it is open. say that some have commented it is awfully difficult to get home insurance when the neighborhood is on fire. is this the right time to start focusing in on now? that are some in finland argue this probably should have been thought through prior to the current crisis. is an active dialogue between the finnish defense officials and nato officials, also bilaterally between the u.s. and finland. there is a stark difference between a nato member and a non-nato member on defense, full stop. ourwe do highly value partnership with sweden and

finland. as you look at this regionally, there is a vulnerability of non-nato members. ironically, 10 years ago when the baltic states were joining sweden thoughtnd their strategic vulnerability was the baltic states. today the baltic states believe their strategic phone or ability may be sweden and finland's non-nato membership. we will follow the finished debate quite closely and stay in close touch. >> great. thank you. , wilson center. i want to ask this, following up on the finnish question -- you said there is no appetite for expansion of nato, but we do have this action by finland.

i am presuming when you say there is no appetite, it means georgia, ukraine. said we want to join, wouldn't that be a game changer? how would nato realistically react, or could i delve into what you were just saying when the neighborhood is on fire, etc.? what does that mean, exactly? they wouldn't say no, would they? >> that's a great area to explore. you are right. i think there is a stark difference among the nato allies , as they are considering montenegro's membership, potentially bosnia, he ukraine and georgia, thinking about sweden and finland -- they are theirifferent places in approach. i think you would see where sweden and finland -- working so closely with nato have in some

ways -- their military modernization and a close ahead ofhip puts them the mill to mill dialogue with -aspiring countries for sure. would it be a game changer if finland and sweden were to formally come to nato and seek membership? yes. it would give the alliance and next ordinary conversation about what that would mean, speaking of provoking. that would certainly provoke a very strong reaction from russia. i'm not a specialist in how this would work, but there would be the process of -- it would take quite a while before all nato members -- even if a formal invitation was provided by nato, a all member states have to ratify. belgium has 16 parliaments

alone. with article five begin at the moment of invitation? i don't know all the practicalities of this, but that would be part of the conversation. and can you make that decision at a moment of great crisis? this is an analyst's dream. we can spend an enormous amount of time trying to spin the scenarios out, but i think your question -- this is the dramatic change that i am talking about. this is the dramatic thinking we need to do, and this is why u.s. policy needs to be much more broadly thinking about this from a regional perspective. it is an extraordinary challenge for sure. thank you. ondo we have a board game this upstairs -- if anybody wants to come and play one day, we are very good. with argus media.

despite the difference in opinion you mentioned regarding sanctions against russia, do you to usethe u.s. or the eu the summit as an opportunity to impose new sanctions on russia? believe there will be a concerted effort as her was a few weeks ago to do a new round of sanctions. clearly, i think there will be some focus on next steps. as i looked broadly over the nast bash last several weeks, the more we have impose sanctions, the greater the crisis has excellent -- escalated. so what happens now? are trying tools digest what happened yesterday and locke talks between -- long talks between the president and

putin, what this cease-fire will look like. because of the escalation, because of yesterday's news of this new opening of separatists in the area, that is a significant. if there is a loss of access to the sea, we're in a different place as well. i'm sure they were -- there will be monitoring events, preparations to see what more can be done if the crisis continues to escalate. i don't sense you will get anything more on another round of enhanced sanctions. great. straight in the back. thank you. you mentioned that open-door

policy is still on the table, but enlargement is not. about other countries from the balkans, may be more about montenegro, macedonia, in a tough position for years. can you elaborate about montenegro, because montenegro is almost ready but they have a big impact from russia, especially their secret agencies and everything. talk about that, please. there was great frustration when nato signaled several weeks ago that this was not going to be a moment where an invitation would be provided to montenegro. there has been an extensive

amount of work and preparation for that eventuality. the preparation for a country, nato-aspirant country happens at two levels. military to military, the preparation of that ally to be able to contribute to nato. there is also that political track, which means that potential ally is ready to accept the responsibilities of joining a value-based alliance. of course, there is the political willingness by all members to accept that member. willis where the political of nato over the last several years has diminished greatly. in some ways it is because the table has grown so large. nato at 28 is a challenging alliance to get consensus. assessment and perception

among those 28 is very different. trying to get that alliance to contribute, and every member to reach that 2% goal or to make that commitment. people were hoping that the united states would be much more pushing thed it is enlargement agenda. that has been the historic experience. i don't think you saw a dramatic push from washington, and there is great reluctance in europe to do this. what this means for the western balkans, that is unfinished business in europe. we know when we neglect unfinished parts of europe we have crisis. in some ways, that he's ukraine and that is georgia. to alliance will need refocus on this. now what you have are frustrated beenant countries that had working hard on reforms that may start backsliding if they don't feel that gore is truly open, dooronly open in theory --

is truly open, it's only open in theory. >> about the russia-monte negro impact, do you have any information on that? >> i don't have a great sense of that. watching on the eu side, serbia as an eu-aspirant country has said they will not impose sanctions on russia. veryis going to be a difficult choice for some baltic countries that rely very heavily on russian energy, russian financial support. the tug and pull that you are seeing in ukraine between russia and the west, that is and will continue to play out in the western balkans. when it isbusiness, too difficult for us to tackle, allowing it to just be put off

the agenda, will return to it at great price. >> [inaudible] have time for about one more after that. karen with the baltic american freedom league. what is the perspective on the with regards to the french sale of warships to russia? i know cameron is against it. [indiscernible] i hear from the baltic american freedom league that soldiers are already being trained from russia on these french ships in france. >> yes. the status of the french sale to russia. certainly from president obama to every senior official has certainly registered its deep concern about this sale.

toortunately, it has not led a change of decision by the french government. right now i believe approximately 400 russian sailors are being trained in shipe now, and the first will go to the pacific fleet. the second vessel to be is going, ironically, to be named [indiscernible] and will be delivered to the black sea fleet. this is something we will have to continue to work very hard to convince parents that this is absolutely the wrong decision. is absolutelythis the wrong decision. unfortunately, they are clinging to the economics of this. if you have been following the french economy, you understand

that is a difficult decision. we are going to have to keep working on it. to beof the pressure has applied. unfortunately, the first vessel is due to be delivered in october, so we are running out of time. >> [inaudible] nato's certainly impacts solidarity. >> what about nato possibly purchasing them? >> there has been creative thinking about that -- >> i said, what about nato possibly purchasing them in helping that solidify solidarity? >> i'm sure there has been creative thinking about how to help our french friends get to the right place on this decision. i do not think there has been anything that has come forward on that as of yet. global arms market has changed dramatically in the last 10 years. the russians are the second largest exporter next to the united states of arms. if theree very tricky

continues to be tension between russia and the rest of the west. this is one example. the u.s. has its own, which has been the mi-17 helicopter. these things will pop up allover and there has to be an alliance approach to deal with russians sold arms. >> i want to thank everyone for coming. the transcript will be at cis.org. you can follow us on twitter at csis. i want to thank heather conley and kathleen hicks for this wonderful briefing. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> watch this preview of the nato summit hosted by the center for strategic and international

studies any time on our website, www.c-span.org. live, two former digital and technology strategists from the obama and romney presidential campaigns discuss how innovation has changed the way campaigns are run, and what we can expect in the future. they will share their insights on the midterm races they will be monitoring from a technology standpoint and how these digital changes may impact traditional media in politics. from george washington university, live coverage starting in just a few minutes, scheduled to start at 4:00 p.m. eastern time. eastern,t 8:00 p.m. steve perry, founder and principal of a magna prep school in hartford, connecticut the takes only students from impoverished families is featured on tonight's c-span issues special. in this preview, he talks about the monetary cost to have people in jail and the lack of resources to help people and

they leave prison -- when they leave prison. >> we are spending in some communities on education and incarceration more than we are spending on anything else. we are dropping a lot of money at the back end to incarcerate. just imagine if some of these preventative programs to you mostly work in or want to start, just imagine if you had $50,000. year.uld buy a house per but that money just poured down a hole because what happens is we allow the political forces that are going on in our country to come up and say, lock them up. three strikes, you're out. and then wonder why they are

vagabonds when they come out and can't get a job. can't get a student loan. can barely even get access to their own children. and then we wonder why the kids don't have anybody in their life. you see it. you see how this thing happens. it is a couple of small decisions that become big. perry tonightteve as he talks about the power of social workers and improving lives in poor and minority communities. it is part of a conference hosted by clark atlanta university. the program starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. >> this weekend on the c-span networks -- friday night on c-span, native american history. on saturday, live all-day coverage from the national book festival science pavilion. saturday evening from bbc scotland, a debate on scotland's's upcoming decision on whether to end its political union with england.

sunday, q&a with the chief justice of the second circuit court of appeals. he shares his approach to interpreting laws passed by congress. , friday at 8:00 p.m., in depth with ron paul. saturday, all-day live coverage of the national book festival. speakers, interviews, and fewer call-ins with authors. sunday at 9:00 p.m., after words. on american history tv on c-span3, friday, a nasa documentary about the 1969 apollo 11 moon landing. war,day, on the civil general william tecumseh sherman's atlanta campaign. sunday night, a look at election loss and supreme court cases in bush versus gore. find our television schedule at www.c-span.org, and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at the number on your

screen. on twitter, use the # c123. or e-mail us. >> now live at george washington university for two former digital technology strategist from the obama and romney presidential campaigns, talking about help innovation has changed the way campaigns are run. event just getting started, live coverage. sure we are highlighting the best innovations in sustainability. he also is an emmy award-winning journalist, prior to being the snpa heof the school of was with cnn for 21 years. lease welcome to the podium frank sesno. [applause] >> thank you, mark.