limitations is at a high level. ukrainians, i spent some time there. -- robustt is the building tuitions -- institutions, winning influence, loving putin has done, he may have one in the short term, but he has turned the ukrainians into nationalist. fight --zenship to the so to shift to the fight against groups in syria, the u.s. has a choice, but they have now chosen to be a little hands off, working through the coalition. cominghere be a time when the u.s. have to choose for

more direct warfare? -- lighth the afghan likethe afghan team -- with the afghan team? mike: what we did with afghanistan was remarkable. i would not equate that with the same as what putin has done in ukraine. this is the marriage of precision warfare with non-precision warfare. if you compare to iraq maybe yes.media. -- kim: do you need to ramp up the number of u.s. advisers on the ,round, joint air controllers things that would make the iraqi

forces, the kurdish forces, more effective in the battlefield today? kathleen: i would say that there to grow. the u.s. contribution to include special operators on the training side, there is no doubt about that. but before you grow that out, there is absorption of a capacity issue, the ground forces that are there to work with. there ishere i think rightfully a lot of attention in making sure that we collectively get the iraqis, obviously their there is situation pressure there, but think it forces in-- to get there and give them capable to work with u.s. trainers. where we haven't done that,

kurdish forces is the most doneus -- where we have that, kurdish forces is the most obvious. it has worked well, we brought in firepower to match with their on the ground capabilities and then the training aspect. and i will add, i think that has sustained,ed, he -- you cannot do it limited and think it will take care of the situation. but before we jump in with a lot more, we need those ground forces to use her to come together. forces canground take years to grow, in the interim it seems that isis is growing faster and is doing things like planning plots against the u.s. homeland, said we have the luxury of this time it will take to bring forces up to speed? mike? is you trained

forces, give them some support, but basically they will do the fighting. that takes a lot longer to get them ready man if you are willing -- than if you are willing to go with them on the front lines. if you combined power with the ground force -- kim: i meant afghanistan even now? mike: but even afghanistan in 2001, the reason is you have a ground force, big enough to be the world's greatest to execute the power. if you do not have someone with -- power, it just takes a lot of time. just like training takes time. so that brings me to the

question of the use of special operations, or maybe the overuse of agile operations, for every national security problem that this country faces. one could argue that this white house uses them like the ultimate swiss army knife of the pentagon. do you have the numbers you need to meet the missions that you face? i know you are a few years out, but it is something i can watch. you can go out and protect intelligence forces or engage. 9/11 -- nce mike: since 9/11, we had tripled quadrupled we have the use of these forces 9/11.

is dramatic growth. they are also integrated man. it is what you do with them. -- constitutes maybe 3% of the overall manpower. the definition of special operation is in operation conducted by forces or with other horses are not organized or trained or equipped to conduct. it is a negative definition. is notthe question should special operations forces be bigger, because growth management has been a challenge, but it is whether or not other forces should be equipped to do things that have fallen on special operations over the last few years. as operations were already there responsive, but

there is no reason that other forces cannot do much of what special operations does. , theeen: to make it clear issue is maintaining a high level of quality that is in special operations forces. doing that expansion of them makes the challenge greater, to look why it is time at the rate of forces to see how about training the regular forces. kathleen: -- mike: in 2006, at the height of the iraq war, we had six of vehicles, people call them drones, they are 60 today. there is plenty of capacity.

kim: on that subject, can you on the move tote -- and how you plan to grow to several thousand people to do the same kind of intelligence is different then cia operatives and what they do? mike: it is growing. it is an important initiative in terms of human intelligence. and the department of defense and the military had something to contribute to the overall national effort. that effort,er in it is a compliment. it is a junior partner, not rivaling the side of the cia. we have support from the the and i -- dni.

kim: and is still growing? mike: yes. us too that brings another subject. specials by which operations carried out its trade. sometimes guns, sometimes dreams -- drones. the targeted and usually get most headlines, but it could also give those in the white house a black and white solution to the problem. overused?eting we had 13 years in the middle of these targeted plans, and yet we have the growth of a second militant that has now surpassed al qaeda, according to

the fbi director. so is targeting overused? decade, the past fertilization -- the operation -- of our partners and that has made a different. operations --sm where these operations are really intelligence driven and the analyst are really at the center. strategic effects, al in then its heels pakistan border region, only one of the senior leaders who was there for the 9/11 attacks is less. it is a shadow of what it was maybe 5-6 years ago.

been an effective campaign over many years. kim: but did it pushed the alloon to yemen, because now qaeda has a sophisticated bomb making machine and they are relatively unchallenged. mike: it did open up new friends in syria and -- open up new front in syria and yemen. 90% inked down al qaeda syria. tartars --ust targeting, it is the united states for several years attacking them, and they still survive. it is because syria gave the menu lease on life. pot ofu can't help fight

the problem, but it was not your job to bring ability to the middle east? mike: we are still working on that. steve: there are some nails out there that need to be hammered. isnk that part of it tactical removal of confident leaders of my soul from their positions. isil from their positions. reminding everyone that i sold isil is vulnerable, they have weaknesses. and i think it damages their , to be ablefforts to reach in and with precision take out he leaders. kathleen: i think it is

important in this conversation to remember that we are operating under authorities. these are authorities given in time of conflict that include the ability to use targeted approaches for cash or, for intelligence gathering, and in some i just want to start there, because i do think that the drone debate has become unhelpful, to say the least. does it have a strategic effect? absolutely. as policy makers, we have to be mindful of that reality. but if you look at the progression over time, we do not raze villages. we by and large do not strategically bomb anymore. the fact that we have a toolset now that allows us to really reduce the number of civilian casualties involved in a thelict, that, i think, is

story that's important to tell. are there civilian casualties? yes. are there questions about transparency? yes. and i think we need to address both of those, but i think it has been a good tool in the toolkit, used well, and something we should look at. michael: back to the earlier point, i soul -- isis is different than an army. you need a different strategy than you do against al qaeda. and you defeat an army that's an army. yet, isn't every drone strike a potential recruiting bonanza for the opposition? there is that

theory. we have done a lot of surveys in pakistan. the closer you are to the strike, if you are local, the more in favor of it you generally are. the more you are removed from the fight, the more you complain about your sovereignty being violated and lots of other things. but it has been very supported by the governments. we could not do it without the support of governments. kathleen talked about important cases and the consent of the host nations. i don't buy the argument. business, butough it is a very effective one. a drone is an option, but when you consider a drone versus artillery, or dropping a bomb, or putting forces on the ground, it is not

that bad of an option. for one thing, it can linger. it provides the ability to be patient. it can be recalled without any effect at all. a drone is a far more of delivering a precision strike than some others might be. k. hicks: i want to say what i think this issue gets too, fundamentally, is an information campaign, which we are not great at. k. dozier: what do you mean by an information campaign? k. hicks: when the strike occurs, you point out that it is a recruiting tool. whether it is a recruiting tool or not can be debated. -- weto have attacks that used to have a tax that would be ks thated as -- attac

would be described as drone strikes to enable recruiting. isis has incredible recruiting and a low-tech way. twitter is extremely simple. follow taylor swift. i think we are safe, but we in the united states, we really have -- this is back to the toolset issue. this is not a challenge that is first in fundamentally by a government organization in the light of day trying to tweet out government positions. it has to be more organic than that, and there is a big intelligence support piece of that, and it has to be regional. m. vickers: and the best recruiting tool for these groups is success, successful attacks on the united states, successful conquest of territory. you look at why people are

flocking to isis. they have established a caliphate, and they are successful. k. dozier: that brings me to transparency. disclosure, discuss this before hand and it turns out we don't agree on this one. i believe when special operations forces are you so frequently and so often exposed /are used so frequently and so often exposed in social media -- are used so frequently and so often exposed in social media, ringleader benghazi in libya, that got exposed on social media. should there be a disclosure operation so that if it does become exposed, you can take part in the information campaign, instead of, what i often encounter a spokesman or official saying, i have to check

to see how much we can declassify or how much i can tell you on that? well, that's because we live in a fairly open world. you mentioned two ways of media. able to adapt rather rapidly to that, but there are also things we want to keep secret because we want to do these raids again. we don't want to tell exactly how we did it, who the forces were, or put them or their families at risk or anything else. k. dozier: but there's a difference between saying this unit carried out this raid by helicopters, etc., versus saying -- some of the news releases we are seeing from actions out of syria right now, for instance. thatentagon announced there was a drone strike the other day, or a strike the other day, that took out the us on group. asanind -- took at the hous

group. there it is, for all the reporters who would like to get the exclusive, it's the press release. why not have a plan like that for all operations? m. vickers: i think they do. not always's helpful to announce all of your successes. ,he kind of operation itself ,hen revealed, can disadvantage so it's always carefully considered what is said and when you say it. what about sharing what you know with the press?

this administration has had hot times and cold times in terms of groups ofll bring reporters in to give us briefings on what they are seeing. why not release the satellite images or the gerona images that show the movement of russian drone into uke -- or images that show the movement of russian forces into ukraine? m. vickers: that was done by ngos and others. k. dozier: i thought you are quoting dod. m. vickers: no, there is a lot of information out there. we did share information with .orces in ukraine that has been done throughout history, cuban missile crisis, grenada, a lot that i can think of, but we don't want to give away high-end capabilities that will show an adversary exactly

what we can do in certain cases. you have to think about what you are going to release and how. k. dozier: i don't see it very often. it is a tool the pentagon has employed in the past, such as when georgia was invaded and the press was being told one thing by the russian side. we had intelligence agencies show us here are the satellite images we are seeing. commercial to satellite groups and get independent verification. that gave me as a reporter a way to see what you all were seeing rather than just having to take it on faith. i think we did that with ukraine. i think we showed forces coming across the border. k. dozier: why not with isis? i will take the easy out. as special operations commander, i refer all queries to the pentagon. [laughter]

it was an up to decide the policy and revealing operational -- wasn't up to us to decide the policy in revealing operational information. just a couple more questions before i open it up to the audience. the new york times had an article out recently about navy seals and the joint special operations command. one of the officials quoted in the article, anonymously, as i recall, said jsoc investigates jsoc, and there was an holdation that they do not themselves to the same accountability standards as other armed forces. alleged drone strike allegedly hit a wedding party in yemen. i found out that to general had ordered an investigation into that, even ordered to

investigations into that, and as a reporter trying to report to the american public, that showed soc was trying to investigate itself. why not publish more of this? number one, in a particular case, the investigation was actually done by centcom. theink that disproves thesis that our special operations forces are grading their own homework. i don't give much credibility to an anonymous source. many of the other sources in that article had not served anytime lately. time,say that most of the almost all of the time, special operations forces are a support team for a bigger operation.

special operations is almost always in support, always operating under the approval of an ambassador under the command of a commander. in almost every special operation, runways have to be provided, airspace has to be cleared, medical support, iselligence analysts, this not a secret society or a set that operates independently. operates with full transparency within the military. k. dozier: not to me. , butmpkin: no, not to you for transparency within the chain of command and within the structure provided to do that. as a matteray that , a chain of command

cannot investigate within its own chain. it takes an outsider to do an investigation. it may be that within the , weial operations community appoint an air force component leader to investigate something that happens in the navy component, but to think that there is some sort of secret, , there has never, to my knowledge, been any sort of revelation of some type of cover-up of a special operation investigation. k. dozier: what is the track record of investigations within the force? m. lumpkin: there are multiple investigations. , thereg historically were multiple investigations under way every day looking at things that did not seem right to commanders or other leaders in response to allegations that had been made in some way against the force.

adjudicated, and many actions have taken place. as you don't know about the investigations, you also don't know about the actions that have taken place, sometimes to protect the individual or some other aspect of force capability. it has all been quite well disciplined. i don't see secrecy is necessary to protect an individual who might have committed a crime. well, those things become a matter of record. ms. dozier: not openly available record. mr. lumpkin: if it's a military record, it is. ms. dozier: last question, iran. if the deal goes through and iran is allowed to ramp up its

energy only nuclear enterprise, intelligence community know if they have cheated? i have high confidence in the ability of the u.s. intelligence community to iran.r lots of things in there are always challenges with their vacation but the structure the deal -- we know a lot about iran. one of the generals from special operations who is serving on the ground right now, at a conference recently in tampa, said that the head of the force inside iraq right now honestly believes that the u.s. and theyting isis learned this through intercepted communications, etc. in this deal with iran

anyway foster some sort of understanding between u.s. forces and the iranian forces such that those kind of misunderstandings go away? ms. hicks: i think you can look with some hope to the fact that we have been able to sit down in negotiation with the iranians, not just in the u.s., obviously, but with our european partners and others. you can look with some hope to improvements in understanding, but i think it is an extremely long road. conspiracy theories in the middle east run every which way. if you were to have that conversation with somebody in the uae, they would probably tell you they think the u.s. and iran have struck a deal together to devise the middle east. the reality is, we are in for a very long era of instability in crossddle east with currents running every which way

and the u.s. will have to be able to talk to parties in the region and reassure them as best they can about u.s. interest. there are a lot of conflict points between the united states and iran that haven't changed because of this deal. removal of power in syria. we are supporting the cooties in yemen. we are so -- hootie in yemen. s in yemen. there is a whole range of activity that is unlikely to be made whole. ms. dozier: one last follow-up. -- quickly did we know weeks, months, days? it depends what they are doing.

it just depends. some could be hours. .thers could be a week you cannot just cheat like that. whole scale, large-scale cheating takes some time. some might literally be hours. others might be a week, others something else. the question is then what do you ?o about it ms. dozier: does the opening with iran mean the u.s. or other intelligence services could have greater visibility to what's going on? mr. vickers: the deal structure is to give us greater access. access is usually a good thing, but we are not fully dependent on it. ms. dozier: to be continued. with that, i open it up to the audience.

have a question about sequestration. saw a largeo, we announcement by the army coming down, 40,000 troops. sequestration could take that down another 30,000. that doesn't include cuts to the national guard and reserves. given that we depend so much on military forces for enablers in recruiting, what kind of impact is that going to have given that we are doing more with our special ops forces? ms. hicks: thank you for that softball. i had the pleasure of being in cuts werethe day the announced. it is definitely going to have an effect on special operations forces. it is going to have an effect overall.

the united states has made a decision to reduce the amount is going to spend on defense, at least in the base budget, and that's a national level decision. that's a political decision that has to do with what we spend, how we tax, what we spend on entitlements, what we spend on domestic programs, and national security. defenses the tail on the dog. those of us who live in the defense community, it boggles our minds. we are the fleas in the tail, if i keep going with the analogy, but the rest of the public is not focused on that. whether it is the army drawdown, up tempo to find, the that forces are feeling and -- in several key areas, whatever it is going to be, it is going to be lagging, unfortunately, and that is what we have to live with.

the telltale signs that we have underinvested in our military to come too late to fix some of the problems, and then we will be back in our usual mode of trying to catch up. we do have a release valve, if you will. --h of so calm happen witht sequestration. we will continue to live withoutyear for socom an ability to plan long-term. when it comes to the threats of the high-end where we are trying build outs, it is extremely challenging to do that in a world in which we don't know from year-to-year what the budget is going to look like. so, just predictability, even if it is a low level of funding, just predictability will help us plan for the kind of defense we need for the challenges we face.

sequestration is also particularly mindless. it cuts your least effective program by the same amount it cuts your most affection. -- most effective. it is an abdication of responsibility. how our services prioritized? i think i have used a biological analogy before. organisms shrink to protect the core. special operations forces are not at the core of any big service capabilities, so the services, and they have the luxury of doing it, provide the in the budgets special operations needs. most of the special operations community in the last decade has not been in the core fighting community. it has been intelligence analyst , technical controls, these kinds of things.

special operations has driven itself. i think what sequestration will on eacht more pressure of the services to find room in their reduced budget to invest [no audio]of well publicized that between communication al qaeda south and al qaeda central about the brutality of isis. i would term at an impotent international response to this.

has there been anything concrete, in your mind, directed toward isis to the incentivize the kind of brutality? mr. vickers: we are certainly trying 2-d incentivize it by dlling as many -- to de-incentivizeto it by killing as many of them as we can. on theow, we are focused west. he didn't pay attention to that kerry did isis makes war on anything, and it has been -- he didn't pay attention to that. isis makes war on anything. at some point, it is going to backfire on them as well.

-- if sunni areas of iraq you try to look at it in straight military terms and say -- guys2000 vehicles and vehicles defeat an army of 50,000 that we had spent training, itollars was because of politics, frustration to the state, loyalty to the central state, etc., and that will turn at some point on isis as well. >> jennifer griffin, fox news. i have a question for admiral olson. do you see a time when women can serve in special operations forces, delta force, rangers, navy seals, and if you think you be asking for an

extension sometime this year? for the panel as a whole, do you bynk the u.s. created isis invading iraq in 2003? mr. vickers: i will answer the first question and let the panel get the rest of it. [laughter] have been female operators in the special operations community for a long time. they have lived under the same conditions as the men. they have served in military information support roles, civil affairs rules, have performed with great distinction, sometimes quite heroically. and there is much more opportunity, i think, for women to serve across the special operations community. i do see increased roles for --en because of special or across special operations.

that does not mean i am a proponent of all specialties being open to all women all the time, but i do think there is much more women can do in very important roles in combat environments. and i will -- ms. dozier: i just wanted to follow. had the physical attributes to join a navy seal team, what do you think it would unit cohesion to have her on the team? mr. lumpkin: there are women who have served as attachments to platoons and marine corps teams at very small levels . of a dozen people, two of them might be women. ms. dozier: but that is everyone onan entr that team relying on that woman

to drag them out of a firefighter risking getting shot. mr. lumpkin: yes, if it is a question of what it will do to unicode using, i don't think that is the right question. it is what -- unit cohesion, i don't think that is the right question. it is what will it do tactically in the field? the question is how tactical will respond to women being the first to take a bullet on a target. i will just remind you that their role on target was to be women, not to be combat soldiers, and the first thing they did was take the helmet off, let their hair down, corralled the women and children and have a very important the target that only

women could do. i think expanding that kind of thatthat women can perform men cannot is something we have to take every opportunity to do. ms. dozier: but you would be more comfortable with that than having them be first through the door in a combat role. mr. lumpkin: if you're asking me as an american male, yes, but i don't want to sound like an old white guy. i think we are only having part of the discussion about women in combat, and this wasn't supposed to be about that. but if we are willing to put women on the front line to take willingt bullet, are we to serve anen infantry units against their ?ill, as we do men

about 30% of infantrymen did not volunteer for combat. it's an entirely different discussion. equalare going to have opportunity, society, instead saying every man for himself on a sinking ship, that is a discussion we ought to have. it lets us think about women in very dangerous roles. that is my sense of it at this point. i'm not in a position to do anything about it. i know that the decisions will 2016.e during a january >> that last question to send us home. create invasion of iraq isis? >> create, technically no.

was before theq invasion in 2002. did it intensify the growth of al qaeda in iraq after 2003? that it did. it expanded the sunni insurgency. ve forward to the irserise of isil after al qaedad iraq with largely defeated, it is largely a creation of the syrian civil war in the sanctuary. a lot of them operated from there during the iraq war. al qaeda in iraq is not just al qaeda jihadists and former iraqi military officers and others.

created, were at least allowed to expand, by iraqi government action. >> i completely agree. >> on that note, thank you very much. conversation to be continued. [applause] >> wednesday, the outgoing army chief of staff ray or do you know discusses his tenure in the future of the army. we will be live from the pentagon at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. and, discussion on naval aviation. the center for strategic and international studies hosts commanders from the navy and marine corps. that is live at 9:00 a.m.

eastern on c-span3. >> this sunday night on "q and then," institute for policy's antiwarnd a -- and activist phyllis bennis on the recent negotiations with iran and the war on terrorism. >> who is isis? why are they violent? i address them on the book. i think what is more important in some ways, because it is something we can do something about, is, what is the u.s. policy? why isn't it working? can we go to war against terrorism? are we doing the more wrong, or is it wrong to say there should be a war against terrorism at all? those of the questions that are the most important and will be the most useful. at 8:00 p.m.ht "q&a." and pacific on

> in our final panel from the aspen institute security forum, the french and spanish ambassadors to the u.s. joined former undersecretary of state paul deborah downs give to discuss russia's annexation of crimea and the threat of isis in europe. this is 50 minutes. thank you very much. good morning everybody. welcome to the second session of the aspen security forum. thank you for inviting me to monitoring this panel. i am really delighted to lead this discussion with our excellent beakers. -- excellent speakers. we have a fellow at the gsk association for affairs. a former undersecretary of state for global affairs. we also have the investor of spain to the u.s., a diplomat since 1982. serve in south africa and sudan.

we also have the ambassador of the france to the u.s.. and among many positions, he was the french permanent repetitive to the u.n. i was atd to tell you a reception at the french embassy just a few days ago when the ambassador admitted that he was a headache for his communication teams. because as he said, he is an uncontrollable speaker. he speaks his mind. therefore, i trust if the other two speakers get to diplomatic, we can count on him to spice things up. [laughter] looking at the situation in europe. many of you know me as an expert on middle eastern affairs, because that is where i am from, but i am also have touch. -- i am also half dutch. i feel that i also belong in europe. we look at the headlines, you get the feeling that the continent is under siege. two wars in its vicinity with

the annexation of crimea, with the conflict in syria. internal turmoil with the crisis in greece. talks about an exit with the u.k. and of course the threat from the devastating migrant crisis. the numbers are astounding. europe under siege? where does the u.s. into the picture? is europe the problem or is it part of the solution for the u.s.? we will also explore the threat , talk of the transatlantic relationship, and possible measures that we can take, europe and the u.s., to strengthen the relationship going forward. i want to first start i asking our two ambassadors to tell me what they think about the title of this panel discussion -- threats to europe.

do any of you feel with the obama administration that the u.s. was pivoting away from in europe towards asia? ramon, why don't you start. ramon: first, thank you for allowing me to participate in this panel. concerned,ecurity is i do not think it will ever happen. in the task of securing our values, we have a community of interests. it is true that maybe economically, the discovery of the pacific as a world statesred by the united

will make that sentence become famous. three months after my arrival in 2012, we went over 900 points in spain. there was word that we were going back to the bailout. feel about what was happening in spain because it also affected the u.s. >> the impact on the economy. ramon: absolutely. in that sense, i don't think that the president has been as .trong or as visible i don't think the u.s. is looking for allies in asia.

>> was there ever a sense in france that there were concerns about a lack of interest in washington towards europe? the obama administration certainly wanted to spend more time on asia, but they were forced by events to focus on the reinvigorate. peoplethe last 30 years, say the europeans don't spend americans are going to asia. china, ite it was not was japan. 80's -- inis in the the 1980's. we have to go back to asia.

the fact is that the u.s. and european union, the transatlantic relationship is the most important relationship in financial trade. whatever people say, what matters is the reality. the reality is that our relationship is extremely important for both sides. affordsimply we can't neglecting it. >> let me go back to the state of the transatlantic relationship. i want your quick assessment. you might have a different perspective on how the obama administration has handled the relationship. i want you to lead us into the discussion of how the u.s. has also managed the war in ukraine, the annexation of crimea.

paula: on your first question, i think it is excellent that we are having this discussion. i like very much the title. both of the ambassadors, in my view, were to dramatic on that question. >> we will have to look at gerard's twitter feed after that. paula: part of the administration wanted to pull it back. there was an equation -- a question of what it meant, certainly in terms of symbolism and in practical actions of the importance attached to the relationship. did it kind of thought the relationship -- did it con note that it wasn't as strategic were becoming less relevant? i think the relationship is a crucial one. it also underscores this title

in the discussion. the need for stepping back and looking at, what is the future vision? but also, what is the strategy? i think we have been lacking th at. in a way, there has been a kind of taking for granted of one another. to answer the core question, i think the quality of the relationship has suffered. it has deteriorated. it is not what it once was. when you look in different areas -- medical, economic, military -- political, economic, military, there have been challenges. at the time when the administration drew i redline in syria in 2013, as we may remember from president hollande, he was out there supporting the administration. the administration flip its position. these are political parts. -- aren't political cards.

on ukraine, the issue is that ukraine is certainly a threat for europe at large and for the u.s. first because of russian aggression into ukraine. it goes to the core of two things. one is literally the aggression that undermines the framework, the institutions, the values as we know it. in fact, president putin has been very clear in his statements in rejecting the institutions, not only the institutions,d but the values of the west. that is one of the core challenges. the second is, ukraine becomes failsafe, it will have economic and political ramifications for europe as a whole. >> i have heard many diplomats say, okay fine, but we are not ready to send our troops to die to help ukraine.

you particularly took issue with the term "cold war." what is it, in your view? is it a hot war because of the casualty numbers, because of nato's stepped-up activity? whether it is in the baltic states, other deployments. what is it, in your view, and how much is a threat is it to europe? inare we looking too much making it to the vote for putin to step back? gerard: if i had a problem with the expression cold war, i think it's important to name the problem in the correct way. it is easier to to find the solution in that way. the cold war was a global confrontation, and ideological and political. in a sense, it was existential. nobody would tell us right now

that the problems that we have with russia are existential. it doesn't make any sense. the 1980's, before the collapse of the soviet russian tanks were kilometers from paris. now they are 100 kilometers from paris. as i have tweeted, the russian forces have never been so far from friends since 1972. -- from france since 1972. this situation has never been so bad since 1667. we need to look at the political reality of the world. in my sense, the conflict we are facing in ukraine is a very traditional one. of you americans and dust europeans -- and us your

opinions. get out ofed to geopolitics, because it led us into two world wars. the question mark we should raise today is the rest of the world believing in the traditional geopolitics. if you look at the weight russians have reacted to the crisis, in a sense, you use the analysis of geopolitics, it was very predictable. at some point, the interpretation of what we were , or peopleraine speaking about nato, was that the west was going to take over ukraine. in a geopolitical sense -- i try to understand it from the russian point of view. if you want to look at the french,, as we say in

you have to put yourself in the shoes of the other side. it is not bad against good. it is two sides. what is the vision of the other side? they think that we are taking over ukraine, which is an injury for them. and they reacted in consequence. in a sense, if we are going back to 1914 or before, it is a traditional conflict. after that, you have military posturing. a sense of trying to send a signal to the other side that i am very serious. the russians are also bluffing. we have to counter-bluff. that, i think, is the country we are facing in russia. -- the conflict we are facing in russia. it has a lot of parts. my conviction is that a lot of

emerging powers we are facing and have to work with are very much engaged in the very traditional geopolitical vision of the world. there we seeing, falsely, narrative of a cold war? is the u.s. leaving putin no choice? trying, and we're we are trying to do it with our legitimate friends, is trying to ukraine --russia and taking into account this russian narrative, trying to find a balance. a balance between the russian passions -- u.s. the russian, what is ukraine -- you ask a russian, what is ukraine, and they will say it is part of themselves.

existentially or historically. i don't justify, but that is a fact. and also trying to find the independence of ukraine. thatg to convince russia ukraine without using as a threat -- would not be seen as a threat. we have been negotiating for a few months with russia. we have been negotiating with some success, but also with some shortcomings in our actions. kim: i think he wants to step it. -- step in. there are also areas of corporation. -- areas of corporation. especially on the nuclear negotiations on i run's nuclear program. -- on iran's nuclear program, which we just saw conclude. paula: i think the core of the

challenge in what we are witnessing, because of the illegal annexation of crimea and the aggression in eastern ukraine -- what this does is impose a direct challenge to the institutions post-world war ii, post-cold war as we know it. which is to maintain peace, security, and stability for decades. it also has posed a challenge to the very values that we hold. but it is not just about europe. i have to add this. it is a broader issue where other parts of the globe were watching. asia, by the way, is watching what is playing out in europe, because this goes to the heart of the sustainment of the global liberal order. nato a has also given renewed edge. atla: then there is also,a

this time, countries concerned about what will come next from russia, like the baltic states. then the question about what will happen with regard to article 5. i thinkadn nd, there has been this reenergizing. but on the other hand, this also -- let's see how it plays out in the in limitation -- and the implementation moving forward. gerard: we have to understand that for a lot of these countries, this order is a western order. we may say that it is the only order possible, and you have to follow it, which frankly won't work. or we try to include in our order the new emerging powers.

discussed and abbasid are -- i discussed with an ambassador of an emerging nato country. i said that he voted in a negative way. and he said, we are on the board of directors. un, we haveto the three veto powers. we always have 9 votes, which is the majority. you go to the un building, all the people are from the west. american, british, swedish, and someone. you go to the imf, the french, the world bank, americans. you have to realize that our world order is really ours.

there are many democracies in the world that don't see that "own" in the world order. kim: you talked about walking in the other person's shoe. what is happening in ukraine is the most pressing problem. but for problems like yours, it is the migrant crisis. in france, it is also the war in syria. that has implications with radical militants returning from syria. ukraine is very far from spain. i think your foreign minister said to an american secretary of state. do you feel that russia can understand the urgency of the problem for a country like yours? we're talking about 200,000 people trying to cross the mediterranean in the last year. 8000 of them have died in doing so.

ramon: two things. we have never had that feeling. what paula was saying about the -- many lawse established were being violated by russia. there is not only an immigrant issue, but a difference in a per

capita income between the northern and southern numbers. -- southern members. we see that between the u.s. and mexico. countries to the south of morocco and algeria, multiply that by a couple. we have the problems that those problems have. it is one of them that is a big feel the state, which is libya. -- a big failed state. the arab looking -- arab awakening, whatever you want to call it. have algeria that suffered the arab spring 10 years back.

pretty well.ing this is not solid in the whole region. the small that, groups linked to al qaeda, some of them linked to isil, get weapons from the armory of gaddafi. business of human oldficking going along the lines of trade in africa. it has been taking place in the last five years at least. now the most successful trade is going from libya. that.h suffered

in 2004, the attacks were done by immigrants. kim: the european union countries have failed to address this problem. bringing people across the mediterranean, that hasn't gone anywhere and is probably not the right solution. your foreign minister saying trying to distribute the migrants that arrived in europe across the continent is like trying to deal with a leaky roof by distributing the water between the roof instead of fixing it. how does europe come together to find a solution? and where does the u.s. fit into this? ramon: the truth of the matter is that we are doing the best we can.

this is a wave of immigration that is coming out of control with countries that cannot be controlled. they are doing their best within .heir own country the issue of security is something that we are very concerned about. to do some birdi urden-sharing. it is difficult. the proposal came out and we do not know what the russians are doing. not found solidarity

with italy. we will solve that. the real problem is the immensity of the ungoverned states. it is the small groups related to al qaeda or isil. you tell us if you thought the u.s. failed to see the gravity of the conflict in syria and what it would me an with the back and forth of militants, whether to do with others,ant crisis or that the u.s. failed to see. >> in the new world that we are unavoidable that the u.s. or the asian allies

could have different strategy priorities. the problem with the fighters. the number of americans in syria is in the dozens. 1600he french, we have french who went to syria or are back from syria. right now, we have 500 french in syria. already, one has been killed. so, you know the figures. you look at the figures and it is dramatically different. it is a major security problem that we have been facing. these guys are coming back trained and radicalized. we have not identified all of them and you know that we have already been subjected to terrorist attacks. some may happen. so, in a sense, we can consider

that we have a very legitimate way, considering the american national interests, and there may be different priorities. the nuance at isil, between the americans and europeans is that it is it is a -- that, ifhe impression isil or isis could be pushed back to syria, for the americans, the solution would be reached. disaster, would be a in a sense. that is the new world world we are living in and we cannot expect the americans to rush to solve any crisis anywhere in the world. moderator: you are the allies in europe.

when america is not there when it needs to be or fast enough? for example, libya, or when obama pulled that from a strike. the president felt rather let down. he felt the same way after the charlie hebdo attacks. he said that if the international community had notd more, we would perhaps the there. provocative and interesting and i would like you in and tell us how the u.s. views the problems. >> we have a direct interest for our own national security and helping maintain stability in europe. issue, theon terrorism issue, the ambassadors discussed all of these and they are of concern to europe.

by economicnded stagnation and unemployment. there have been a range of issues and we have a stake in that. i think you asked about syria and i suggested that we missed some very direct opportunities for collaboration with our allies in europe and in the middle east. the missed opportunities have had strong ramifications and consequences that we are witnessing today. i think you go back and there are missed opportunities and political costs. i think that we spoke about the ukraine and there are 1.3 million displaced in the ukraine. it is not that well-known. war.e are impacted by the

leadership matters. it does not mean we have to have the same tactical script. if you look at the strength of the institutions, values, and the common vision that we had it, it is act up with consultation and figuring out how to go forward. not been the vigorous consultation in this period, until recent. it is necessary to ensure the strength of our relationship. all of our administration's have had it. -- administrations have had it. until present, not vigorous. it is needed. that leads us to the

next part of the conversation and i would like to go to you on this. is there something from 2013 where people felt let down? >> i will not comment on what my president said. moderator: a true diplomat. i want you to respond to paula's point and whether there has been enough consultation with european allies. almost do notthey need an ambassador anymore because the relationship is strong. you would be out of a job and we like to have you in washington. obama has gone to europe and john kerry goes there. there has been a lot of bilateral back and forth. >> to clarify, i am talking conversation,ic

during which leaders have formed relationships and it has had an impact. >> when a diplomat wants to widens thestion, he debate. am really deeply convinced that we are facing a new world and it would be dangerous to go back to the old recipe of americans trying to solve the problems of the world. it will not work anymore. so, i really insist on this lazy andountries are the software the americans have is containment. and we have a new world and new actors.

we have countries that are vibrant and active. we have to work with these countries and it does not mean simply going to the president of brazil and saying, "what do you think of that?" we have to think about the fromtutions that are born 1945's security council. when the chinese create this development, why? because the u.s. has refused the reforms of the imf. it is totally normal for the chinese to say, if you do not want us, we will create our institutions. ofhave to think in terms

world order. goodnk kissinger was a aces. order andhave a world speak the same language anymore. to sorry to be intellectual. tradition. >> i disagree a little bit with that. go from the north of africa and over, it is difficult they are what they think. when you have a country like libya and all of this has been done in different malicious and in it.lts

u.s., of course, and you see the security matters that are important. it would be reacting to a different crisis. the secretary of state speaks of the transatlantic renaissance and you think that is great? >> that is great. when thee questions obviou -- the answer is obvious. moderator: it is part of a new

way of working. you talk about countries going back to old toolboxes. do you disagree with u.s. concerns of defense spending in europe? we hear some say that there is a spending.fense i will quote someone who is colorful with her language. peopleismayed to see worked on the cheap and cheaper." only the u.k. is meeting the target of 2% on defense spending. >> and greece. moderator: we cannot talk about the greek crisis. there will be no end to it. >> i have heard american leaders talk about sharing the burden. that is the usual story.

noise int is the usual a transatlantic relationship. we decide our budget because we decide on the basis of the united states and the threat. nobody has to complain about what we have decided in a sovereign way. it is not an issue. i would add, do not forget that , nato, japan, australia , we are spending 70% in the military world expenditure and i am not convinced that we need to spend more. really, the problems we are facing are not military. emphasis on another the military means.

it is dangerous. when you have a big hammer, you consider any problem is a nail. insistent ontoo military power. when you see immigrants trying to cross the mediterranean, it is not the military. it is not mainly a military fight. i say that with respect to my british colleagues. really, i can say, the french are not that at all. we are fighting in africa against the terrorists and fighting them in iraq. we are doing our job. do not forget that the european union is giving 70% of the world aid to the problem. that is also quite important.

>> of course. that defenseadd spending and members of our congress have brought this question forward, the nature of the alliance, the threats it is facing, and burden sharing. i want to say that the comments that are made in my book really call for an important point and i have been excited about the forum. back andot stepped really look at where europe is going and what is the future of europe. let's assess the problems and what the u.s. strategy should be. withpen to be affiliated the atlantic council, who is launching the assessment that is long overdue.

it is crucial that this is done for the reasons that were stated. >> i want to talk about the ttip . we will go to questions shortly. a mechanism, aside from defense, diplomacy, is the economic partnership between the two sides of the atlantic on par with security and diplomatic ties. >> absolutely. ttip matters greatly and the ambassador mentioned the importance of the economic relationship and at the volume of our trade. it is a win-win. we have a challenge with the european commission and the regulatory challenges that some of the businesses are encountering. that is in the mix. it has to be sorted. ttip, absolutely.

>> we have been preaching for the free economy and we with everybody and in both the u.s. and the eu. where not punching below our way and we will not meet -- reach agreement. there is a political message that we have to solve. moderator: before we go to

questions, i have two more questions before we bring it to a close. is it about mechanisms to strengthen the cooperation? is it about a military and bilateral cooperation? or, is it about going back to the basics of sustained diplomacy? >> it is spanish-based. i think that the new one is more complicated. , we have these relations and others with

issues. maybe not brussels. of course. for sure. i forgot what the question was. is it about diplomacy or new structures? >> a bit more visibility. for theengagement ambassadors in washington. but you have to have both. absolutely. briefly, each one of you, how do you define a common goal for the u.s. and europe and

what are you working towards? >> to build a new world order. murmurs] >> i would say it is the ,aintenance of t's, stability in europe and globally. >> i believe -- i agree with both and i would say that we believe in our values and it can be adjusted to other cultures and we should defend the values. moderator: it is time for questions. the gentleman with the checkered shirt. questione the panelists have to leave at 10:45. scholarer: i am a brought over here graciously to

meet all of you distinguished thinkers and practitioners. you described the many challenges that europe is facing . issounds like the consensus that there are common cause to bring more nuclear weapons to europe and asia and the issues are not easily addressed by these capabilities. what is the role you see for nuclear weapons moving forward? [crosstalking] nuclear deterrence for my country, because it is national, it is no way integrated in nato and it is the ultimate assurance.

you have to understand that, the basic experience of recent 1940 in front of germany. lecture to president roosevelt saying, "we are a democracy overwhelmed." of course, the u.s. did not do it and we were overwhelmed. dark times come, you are alone. that is why you have do -- why you have nuclear deterrence. and defense iner the world where you cannot forecast anything. for the moment, it is unlikely that you would need that.

in 20-40 years, we don't know. the is really, in a sense, .ore of the commitment the nuclearbout weapons given up for the territory and sovereignty. when you hear the officials speak, they regret that action. nuclear deterrence is out there. was happened in that case the press and other parts of the world. pressmber the japanese questioning about extended deterrent. terrible: i have

vision. men by going to call the their jackets. a question for you. thank you for the lecture on politics. from a russian perspective, as mostnow, russia is vulnerable when decentralized. the breakup of the soviet union obviously represented significant decentralization. i assume that you include ofrgia in it your assessment looking through the russian eyes and i see you to put the spectacles on about the thoughts relating to the baltic states.

ofi am not in the brain vladimir putin. it is clear. are facingay that we traditional conflict and we are trying to send the right message article five of nato is serious and we are taking it seriously. the baltic states are members of the alliance. we are implementing the defense of the budget states if there are teams. it is what we are doing. we have poland and we are taking oft in air surveillance

clear signals. fighting signals. there is nothing worse than not knowing what you are going to do. so, we have to be clear to russia that we will stick to article five. i think that is the message. moderator: we have time for one more brief question. i know a german ambassador is in the room. i do not know if he wants to way intothe debate -- weigh debate.e

you raise:t the view of american congress. they are elected by the american public who understand so little of how the government works and has figured out that -- and alan toa has figured out that write for the american public, you have to write at the 11-year-old level. how do we explain to the american public how this works? the rest of america is in code. voters need to understand how to vote. moderator: how'd you make europe relevant? >> we talk about the ambassadors and the engagement with the

.egislative ranch matters something i am personally concerned about is my academic background in european affairs. declinean area on the and it is a video call by which we can re-energize. way that i would move the agenda forward. moderator: thank you ambassadors. thank you for this conversation. thank you for joining. of course, there are more panels on russia and the ukraine. [captioning performed by the

national captioning in which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] this morning, a look at the donald trump campaign. and the director of young invincible's talks about the student debt and health care facing young millennial's. politico.article on

"washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. you can join with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. tonight on c-span, panels from the net roots national conference. a political consultant spoke about helping female candidates raise money. here is a look. >> it is helping candidates understand they do have some of the resources they need to. has different laws around to gets paid, how much you are allowed to contribute. so many women who are like, i am not rich. i do not have rich friends. i cannot run for office.

sitting on a facebook list of 5000 and a phone with 8000 contacts in it. them, name me five people if you told them you were running for office they would be excited. they always have 25. many of those people have never been asked to contribute meaningfully by a political candidate, ever. rootsight, the net conference from phoenix. it focused on the ways to elect more democrats and strategies for electing more women and minorities. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. its august senate in break, we will feature book tv weeknights on c-span two eastern at 8:00 p.m. time. and look for two special

for the on september 5 15th annual national book festival. the load on sunday with our live program with the american enterprise institute and lynn cheney. -- book tv on c-span two, television for serious readers. liability for merchants who chip creditpted new cards. on the future of credit cards in the united states. it was hosted by the group protect my data. this is 90 minutes.

deborah: good afternoon everyone, i am deborah. i would like to thank you for discussion in this today. protect my data is a campaign on credit card security. joined by our distinguished white house guest speaker followed by a panel of experts to discuss this issue. after brief opening remarks, we will open up to answer any questions you may have. we are here today to explore retailers and

financial institutions are taking to secure credit and debit card transactions. the differences between chips and pin technology compared to chip-eight equipped cards. with signature requirements and to provide a brief overview of what the white house is doing to protect american consumers from credit card fraud and identity theft. after what seemed like an unending occurrence of cyberattacks at government agencies, financial institutes, retail, and even the entertainment industry, hundreds consumers have had their personal and financial data stolen and their confidence shaken. given these recent data reaches, data no surprise that

breach security as at the forefront of many consumers minds. the government is working to increase public and private security measures, at less attention has been made to payment security measures. while we certainly need more robust measures to protect sensitive data, we also need a frontline measures that will stop criminals that to try to use stolen credit card and banking information. cards,t common credit they could once you have undoubtedly been using, date back to the 1970's. the use a magnetic strip on back which houses our financial information along with a signature for authentication. as we all know, if of several but mastered the technology to

steal these credit cards and what is more, they can use stolen financial information to exploit the weaknesses of existing credit cards. what is more, they use that financial data to create counterfeit cards to run up fraudulent transactions and to steal from accounts. to combat fraud, many financial institutions have begun to point new microchip cards that are encrypted. some of you have already started chip cards.hese new however, most of these cards still rely on a signature to verify. a feature that, unfortunately, can still be easily forged. instead, chip-and able to cards byld afford greater security

requiring that consumers enter -- ao properly authorize two -- to enable the transaction rather than a signature. securityheightened protection. it was highlighted in president obama's executive order issued in october. it is with great pleasure that i welcome our first guest speaker to tell us more about the administrative actions. she is the senior policy advisor at the national economic council and is the lead for the presidents secure and initiative. she has an impressive background in international affairs and also served our country as a

flight officer in the u.s. navy. welcome our first speaker to present today. [applause] porges: thank you for inviting me, debbie. this is impressive turnout. i don't know if this is august recess or congratulations being in the audience.

this is about including everyone in the conversation. it is looking at reports of data breaches. be, dating back to 2007, 2011, we often thought about the business sector of being the primary target. over 34% of the data breaches reported were targeting payment processors. ofwe look just at the end july, we see the medical health care industry becoming the number one reporter of data breaches. second behind them, the government and the military. we will surpass last her. which unfortunately, set a standard for how many data reaches american consumers were facing. this is really about everyone part.g a

i am going to talk about consumer financial protection through the lens of the white house. are doing from the perspective of federal government to ensure the federal government is better protect inc. american consumers. sure the private sector is positioned for success. fourast, a strategic of consumer protection within a broader landscape of cyber security and how we should think of things over the next decade. which issues should we consider? i will dive into looking at it through the government lens. what we are doing to enhance consumer finance protection. debra go back to what mentioned. initiative president obama

signed last year. to lead the way in protecting american consumers. have been working to position federal agencies to make sure we are using an enhanced payment ofurity technology with all our retail payments. this means we will work with card issuers to issue cards on behalf of the u.s. government. the gsa has begun actively, aggressively issuing cards that have the emb technology. cards that are chip and pan and pin enabled.and cards have been and able to government workers.

this is driving and leading the way. like ways, 10,000 new cards have been issued per day as part of the approach to introduce new ofhnology to recipients federal benefits who have a direct express benefits card. we are looking at all sides of the system. and we are also looking at how secure anng other enhanced payments. seen, in february, the treasury announced that if to pay -- paying bills government online through p ay.gov, you now have multiple payment options. we are looking at the whole spectrum of how we can secure

payment transactions. on the receiving and, if anyone has been to a united states post -- united states postage office lately, you will notice we have an enhanced them so they can receive the chip and pin cards. any federal payment transactions. otheris a number of things in terms of tools we are giving the american consumer. that gives you a taste of what we are doing to better protect american consumers in their transactions. this is a whole government government,ngress, everyone approach. must bea challenge that

tackled together. our computer networks and systems that consumers deal with every day are mostly held by the private sector. government off time has the latest and greatest respondbility to help and effectively. by marrying those two groups up and making sure they partner and work collaboratively together we can make sure consumers are better protected. first, it is about positioning effectively on this issue. hopefully a number of you saw or heard, or attended, since it was in california in mid-february, the protection summit held in stanford in mid-february. it was an exciting event. not just because of the weather and not just because of the 24

plus senior executives and ceos we had from the tech industry, from consumer advocacy, from retail and others, it was about the dialogue and commitments those companies made coming out of the summit. we had over two dozen companies make major commitments to improve their cyber security efforts. to do more to help protect identity. to manage the risk better. to introduce more enhanced security payment features. like an announcements by qvc, kaiser permanente, othersns, u.s. bank, and to start using the cyber security framework to better protect the information they hold. it looks like a visa announcing their tokenization. introducing enhanced

security. american express with identification. credit scores to consumers. free tools we can all use to more quickly respond to malicious attacks. what else? the other interesting thing is how we are collaborating more. thathing that came out was often times individuals or sector-specific engagement looks efforts by specific agencies addressing the sectors they work with to simulate cyber talked to the response is, in die identify key challenges moving forward so they can better respond in the future. one example is treasury.

multiplehas run tabletop exercises, public and private which simulate what happens in a malicious attack and determine how best to respond said that we and government can help the private sector most quickly and effectively protect the american consumer. a key part of that is information sharing. to briefly consider how this fits into broader cyber security andrts, cyber security consumer financial protection are two sides of the same point. we have seen the cyber security threat continue to evolve and our responses continue to evolve. consumer responses must continue to evolve. this looks like conversations about legislation.

conversations about including new stakeholders. conversations about how consumers and the american public consider their identity moving forward in the next decade and what to identity management looks like. to divan on the legislation front, i would be remiss with this audience not to mention it specifically because 2014 was such a good year for us when we look at congress passing legislation. thatcularly legislation improves how we protect our own network. we are all well aware that there is still new legislation out to address specific consumer protection issues and reference legislation proposed thise white house earlier

year for key issues including information sharing and data breach notification. additional safeguards to ensure the american public has its privacy and civil liberties protected. to provide for increased information sharing among government entities, and between the government and the private sector. we are hoping the momentum in intowill carry forward 2015 inch we will have progress. it will set us up for increased success. stakeholders,her i will say that twice because there are two more. number one, we talked about the federal government, but there are also state and local entities. at the economic council we participated with governor mcauliffe at an event where the state of virginia announced they would be the first