do not for a moment diminish the extraordinary efforts, but it appears to me that this is a very timely avenue for acceleration of those programs. dollars thank you very much. -- >> thank you very much. >> i am grateful for your views in this part of the world regarding afghanistan and pakistan and india. nato has that very much on the future of what happens in afghanistan. one of the stains that could ensure disaster and a real blue -- one of the things that could insure disaster is a problem between india and pakistan. .

namely dealing with this insurgency and not becoming transfix again with the indians. >> -- not being transfixed again with the indians. >> very rapidly after he began the envoy, bringing the top leaders of afghanistan and pakistan to the united states. i participated in two of those conferences at various junctures. we met during the week or at the embassies. that does not get to the indian problem, but getting back to afghanistan and pakistan for a moment, this was the first time that most americans have really heard or seen these persons

engaged in dialogue, and my impression was it was the first time some of these leaders themselves had ever had a good chance to give answers. i think that was important. it did not ensure that pakistan meet -- pakistanis, who had a good relationship with admiral mullen -- they saw each other. they had some sense of how this country operate -- how these countries operate. as it does with india. our conversations with the indians are closer and more abundant. it is more important than they know that we have some sophistication in terms of pakistan. we at least know who the people are, can call them, can argue

with them, in a point of crisis, perhaps intervene. so there is less chance of a confrontation. i think this has worked remarkably well in what has been a very difficult set of circumstances. now, india, as you suggested has orders for a large amount of new armaments. i looked them up. our defense contractors are very eager to make those exports, as most of us are in the balance of issues. with the pakistanis, we likewise have a program that was announced by the president, the so-called kerry-lugar bill, and this has been interpreted in many ways. they are suggesting how the money, 1.5 does billion, might be sent, not just this year but for five years, and the

important thing is that this is not an innocent proposition. there is a multilateral commitment. i think we are moving pragmatically, quite apart from afghanistan. each country will have to make up its mind as to what it wants to do there, and without trying to get way ahead of the subject today, our country will have to make up its mind about afghanistan. now, the president is measuring a good number of thoughts even as we speak, and that will lead implications with regard to how we are perceived by nato allies and others at that point, but i do not believe that afghanistan defines release success or failure of nato.

i am impressed that a number have send troops. they have stayed. and largely, i suspect, it is often because of their feelings of alliance with the united states and with each other, as opposed to understanding altogether what the mission was and how it might come out. that is important. i respect that. >> you said the obama administration has to make up its mind on afghanistan. how would you assess the obama administration's policy thus far, and what is your response to the reports from general mcchrystal that was leaked from "the washington post," and is what he is outlining something you would support? >> well, i am going to duck a lot of that, because, essentially, these are arguments still too, and votes still to be cast, but let me just say the i believe that president obama, at the time that he did this made

some decisions with regard to iraq. as a part of that decision making process, it was indicated that as it had been planned apparently previously, supplemented troops would go to afghanistan but with the thought that there be an examination down the trail, so a new strategy was said. at least that is the impression most of us had about march or thereabouts for the additional troops. perhaps the agreement was that general mcchrystal would outline it as he saw them, whether that strategy was working or not. it is hard to tell who begins the report to or sends it to or

what have you, but it is out there. in due course then, after the president of the united states and his administration had examined this, there would be a decision and a request even for more troops or we would not be sending more troops, we would be doing something else. that second letter or paper by general mcchrystal was not to be forthcoming, and the first one was therefore generally examined. those of us on the foreign relations committee in the senate were waiting at the time for the week in "the washington post" about what general mcchrystal had to say. we have bits and pieces of it now. but at the same time, we have not seen the whole thing. at some point, the political

system in this country works in ways that reflect the public of the united states, so at this stage, i would suspect we will have to get that decision making process in the white house to go a little swifter and some recommendations. it is a very unfortunate set of circumstances, because much of the president's current enthusiasm with regard to the health-care debate day in and day out, hour after hour, there is no sign of it going away, and the copenhagen conference with the legislation that the president is pushing their, those have been the prime focus is. you have afghanistan moving up in this way. it is not timely, but that is the complexity in america. i hope that the president will respond. it will send administration witnesses to our hearings so that we can examine that.

people can examine it at the same time. for the moment, the public in this country has become either confused or conflicted quite apart from public opinion in european countries and with our nato allies, and that will not work. we really have to settle on the issue one way or another as we talk about the future of nato. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. i represent a broadcasting company in washington, d.c. this has implemented a special annual agenda which has been given to georgia. do you think that georgia can become a nato member one day without this plan? thank you, sir. >> whether georgia can become a member without the plan? >> i think it is still a very good idea as far as the procedure. it seems to be that prepared to step has served most countries

well in terms of their own preparation. i know one of the important aspects of nato is the country seeking admission -- they have made huge reforms, huge changes, and are better for it. they have stronger democratic institutions. they have freedom of the press and so forth. i believe as i said in my remarks that nature should be considering georgia. it is still in the list. i mentioned in ukraine and the balkan states. i am not one to say that this is beyond the pale right now. i think we have to keep talking about it. but i would say to the jurrjens of the need for continued political and economic reform, it will be very important, membership plan or not. at some point, they may decide

upon an action plan. >> let me also the origin also welcome you again. to the united states. >> thank you. i do agree, but we need to define exactly what this is. after all, was it the original alliance? it was the glue between the member nations. i think if you want to put together the pieces of the puzzle, you need them to have clarity, which, in my mind, could be the common understanding of security korean we did not have it in 1949. we did not have it -- maybe even the first to date. there is still a common

understanding of security and if not, how to get to it. >> i am not sure we do have a common understanding of security. i think this is a very important part of the agenda as nato looks at its strategic posture now. the same way that we all talked about article 5, and you can read them backward and forward, you are quite correct. there are some things that may require a definition, but the national sentiments and our willingness to come to each other is rescue, the importance we proceed and that, not only for ourselves and a joke but for the rest of the world. there be this cohesive organization of democracies, people who talk about what we do. i think there is hope around the world that that is the case, that there are countries who are still able to articulate things that are most important to human beings generally, and they take

strength. we're able to emulate that, and, furthermore, they might like to be a part of that. this may lead, in fact, to some intersection of the nato alliance with other alliances in due course who share those values around the world. this goes beyond our agenda today, but nonetheless, your question prompts it. we begin to think about our values and what security means to us and why we are confident we would come to each other's rescue, even with the complex affairs of cyber attack or energy attacks, quite apart from tanks and other things. >> senator lugar, let me just take one minute before thinking you to note how important it was to have you launch this series. there is no voice on these issues that is better respected in this country or in europe among our allies, and i cannot

think of a better way to follow you up then with a new secretary-general of nato, an ders fogh rasmussen. they will be talking to the secretary general rasmussen for his first on the record speak as secretary-general of united states. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> more now on the future of nato with comments from secretary general anders fogh rasmussen. he spoke for about one hour and was introduced by retired

general james jones. [applause] >> well, senator, thank you very much. thank you for your work here at the atlantic council, and thank you for the congratulations, and congratulations to what you're bringing to the council in terms of revitalizing this venerable institution and trying to get into the 21st century, so congratulations. it is a pleasure to watch you, albeit from a remove situation. mr. secretary general, senator lugar, members of the council, and distinguished guests, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words this evening.

there are some threats we are dealing with that war unthinkable 60 years ago. allied service members and civilians from 42 nations work together to defeat al qaeda and the taliban to build a stable and peaceful state. proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology, cyber warfare capabilities seeking to undermine the very infrastructure that many of us take for granted in our daily lives, the daily threat in are interconnected world, piracy, energy change, failed and failing states, and the resumption of old ethnic hatreds has needed cooperation among allies.

some outsiders and declared that nato is outmoded, the cold war relic that cannot possibly adapt to these new challenges. i emphatically disagree, and our speaker tonight also emphatically disagrees to that notion. he has arrived at the helm of nato in truly extraordinary times. there is a sense of opportunity and a desire for action. he brings to the table the political savvy of a head of government, the economic acumen of a finance minister, the energy of an avid outdoorsman, and the compassion of a father and, may i say, new grandfather. he has hit the ground running, and in only two short months, he has begun to a groundwork for a new nato strategic concept, when that will address the challenges that i just spoke of, and one for a nato that remains ready and relevant well into the 21st century.

he has called for a re- examination of relations with russia, one that seeks practical cooperation on issues of mutual interests while acknowledging the fundamental issues on which nato and russia still continue to disagree. he has embraced the media, working to bring the message of nato to a new generation who has grown up never knowing the experience of a divided europe or a warsaw pact. he has recognized the growing ballistic missile threats of the alliance and the need for nato to play a central role in adopting a phased approach that will protect all allies. there is their commitment to our shared task in afghanistan, on which he will share his views and vision tonight. ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to bring to the podium the man who will lead the alliance into the new era, the secretary general of the north atlantic treaty organization, anders rasmussen.

[applause] thank you, general, senator, council members, for inviting me to speak today. i know that the atlantic council, which already has and longstanding reputation as a pre-eminent think tank has new energy and new wind in its sales -- sails, which is why i am so pleased to make my first speech in the united states as the new nato secretary-general today, here. as you heard during that very

kind introduction, i was prime minister of denmark for nearly eight years before taking up this post. and i cannot tell you. a lot of people ask me at the time why i wanted to give up that very special job to head up an organization some consider out of date, and which is struggling with a very difficult operation in afghanistan. my answer then was as clear as it was then now, because nato remains the gold standard when it comes to international security corporation. because i believe firmly in the benefits and the potential of the transatlantic partnership now as much as ever, because we

must succeed, and i intended to help make that happen and, finally, because i want to help shape the new nato, not least three new strategic contract. these are the more specific reasons why i accepted their reasons for my new job. there is what called a more overall reason, and that became even more clear to me during the past weekend. i'd visited springfield, ill., and as you all know, that is the home town of abraham lincoln -- i visited springfield, ill., with the impressive lincoln library and museum and the old state capitol where lincoln

served as state legislator before his stint as president. in 1858, lincoln gave the speech in which he praises the desire for liberty as the strongest defense against despotism. i quote, "in the preservation of the spirit which comprises liberty as a heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. destroyed this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors ." of all dates, abraham lincoln gave this speech on 9/11, 1858.

a reminder of the timeless truth and significance of these words, and i consider it a duty to work for the accomplishment of these values and principles in the world of today and tomorrow. therefore, i was pleased to take on the responsibilities as leader of the world's strongest military alliance, an alliance that is not just military but built on shared political values. of course, taking the job was the easy part. making this all happen is slightly more complicated. meeting the security challenges we face today will take all 28 members of this alliance standing together and pulling together in the same direction,

and it is my job to help make sure we do. as nato secretary-general, i have to straddle the atlantic with 1 foot in europe and one in north america, and when they come together, i am more comfortable when they drift apart, i am the first to feel the pain. and i must say up front, i am a little concerned about the doubts i hear these days in the united states about nato. some look at the operation in afghanistan and wonder if the europeans have the will to fight.

some wonder if the europeans have the capabilities, even if they want to. some think that the days of strong bonds are a relic of the past and that the future for the united states is asia or india or maybe some morals i want to tackle these doubts head on, because i must say i get the impression that many americans are losing sight of what nato is and how much it does. in the interests of u.s. security, and that is a trend we

need to reverse. afghanistan is a case in point. i know that there are many here in washington who are frustrated by the restrictions some nato nations put on their forces. by the time it takes for nato to make decisions, by reluctance of some countries to send more forces to the mission, even for training, let me be very clear. i understand those frustrations, and i am already working hard to address this very real problems. i also think that people are missing the forest for the trees. yes, running this mission as a nato operation has its share of challenges. all things considered, that is

to be expected. but those challenges are far, far outweighed by the benefits very much for the united states. first and foremost, all 28 nato countries are in the mission. without exception. that is solidarity. and there are others, all nato partners with troops in the field as well. nato and non-nato, but all under nato command. this is no ad hoc coalition of the willing. this is an alliance that is proving its staying power every day. which brings the second benefit, boots on the ground. there are 35,000 non u.s. troops

in the mission. that is 40% of the total, and that number is going up. over the last 18 months, about 9000 extra troops have been provided to the mission from the non u.s. members. 16 countries have increased their contributions over that period 9 has cut back. -- over that period. none has cut back. the allies are not running from the fight, despite the conventional wisdom. 14 countries have forces in the south and east of alongside u.s. forces, and while body count is

no measure of solidarity, it is a symbol of commitment. over 20 countries have held -- had their soldiers killed, some in large numbers. every wednesday in brussels, i begin a meeting of nato ambassadors by offering my condolences to the countries that have lost soldiers in afghanistan during the previous week. that has happened every week without exception, so i will not accept that the europeans and others are not paying the price. they are.

let me mention one other benefit that sometimes goes unseen development assistance. billions have been pledged to help rebuild afghanistan, and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by nato allies in afghanistan. it is all part of the same package. a team effort to achieve a common goal at a very high price in blood and treasure. these are not caused the u.s. can afford to pay a loan -- pay alone. we are there to get there. to my mind, afghanistan does not suggest nato is past its prime. it proves just the opposite. the solidarity built up over 60 years is being strongly tested in afghanistan, and is holding

up over the years despite casualty's and setbacks. that is a huge achievement and a precious asset. i hope that is recognized here in the united states. let me stress that there is no doubt that the united states is an indispensable part of this mission, and our allies respect the sacrifices the united states has made, but talking down, and the european and canadian contributions, as some here in the united states do on occasion can become a self- fulfilling prophecy.

if these are recognized and valued, they will be less inclined to make those efforts and those sacrifices. that is not in anyone's interest, and it does not reflect the reality on the ground first and foremost in afghanistan. we are there to gather. that is my first main point tonight. and we're there together. it will be only if we do it together. i know that despite everything we have already done, reaching our goal in afghanistan is not guaranteed. which brings me to my second point. we cannot simply continue doing

exactly what we're doing now. things are going to have to change. the reasons are clear. public support for this mission in true contributing countries is falling because of rising casualties, because of concerns about the way the elections were held, but most of all because there is a sense among many people that despite all of the progress, we're not getting anywhere. part of the problem is simply communications. we in governments have not managed to show our populations, and has been accomplished. 7 million afghan students are in school. one-third of them are girls. 85% of the population has

access to basic health care, up from 6% a few years ago. millions of people can vote and did so in the past elections despite taliban threats. women can walk the streets and hold jobs in parliament. and al qaeda has no training camps, no launch pads in afghanistan for terrorist attacks against us in the west. these are huge achievements in just eight years. but the reality is that this mission cannot continue forever, and it should not continue forever, and our populations, in afghanistan and international, they want to see light at the end of the tunnel. they want to see the beginning

of transition to afghan lead. that means from a security point of view afghans taking responsibility province by province with international forces in a supporting role. it means afghans running their own schools, their own hospitals, their own government. i believe if we can assure the transition is actually happening, our publics will continue to support this mission through to success, but i am convinced that if we do not clearly and completely begin to move towards transition to afghan leader, it will be impossible to sustain public support for this mission over the long term. soon rather than later, transition must begin, but let

no one spin this as a run for the exits. it is not. nato will stay for as long as it takes to succeed, and i want to repeat that, as long as it takes. but that cannot mean forever, which means we have to start doing things a little differently. general mcchrystal's top-secret strategic assessment is being studied not only by anyone who reads "the washington post" but by the nato nations and our partners as well. we will discuss it within the alliance, and when the time is

right, we will discuss the source aspect, as well. but one thing is already clear. if the afghan security forces are to take the lead, they will need to be better trained, better equipped and likely more numerous, which means we are all going to have to invest more in training and equipping them because they are not ready now. it is a very simple tabulation. we have to do more now if we want to be able to do less later. that is why nato has just established a training mission in afghanistan and why i will be pushing allies very hard to resources and resource it fully.

we cannot do transition on the cheap. that would be the ultimate false economy. this applies to the civilian effort, as well. i discussed this with u.n. secretary general ban ki-moon last week, and we looked ahead to the conference on afghanistan that will be held at the end of the year. in a nutshell, i believe that that conference needs to set out a clear strategy, identify concrete benchmarks, and earmark sufficient resources for afghan leader across the board in the coming years. i have no illusions. none of this will be quick.

and none of it will be easily. we will need to have patients -- patientce, and, unfortunate, we will lose more to the taliban, but i fully agree with president obama when he says that this is not a war of choice but of necessity. it is obvious that if we do not succeed, afghanistan will again be a terrorist camp. pakistan, nuclear arms pakistan, will be severely destabilize -- destabilized. things will spread to central europe. that is simply the reality.

which brings me to my third point. today, our territorial defense begins far away from our own borders. the 21st century nato needs to look and to act beyond europe and north america and in order to keep europe and north america safe. proliferation is another good example. the proliferation of missiles far away from our borders is a clear and growing menace to our populations. nonproliferation measures are important, but they are not enough. iran shows us why, and that means we must also look at deploying missile defense.

the recent announcement by president obama on missile defense is important for two reasons. first, because it laid out a road map for the growing missile defense in a realistic time frame with a proven technology against invisible threat, but second, because this plant puts missile defense solidly in a nato context with participation open to all allies with protection for all allies. that is the way in which we need to face the 21st century challenges, not going it alone but together, sharing the risks and costs. this brings us back to

afghanistan. to my mind, the way forward may be very difficult to navigate, but it is clear. first, the nato allies must continue to stand united, to recognize each other's contributions, and to see this through together. second, we must as an international community begin now to plan for and invest in a comprehensive transition to afghan leader, military and civilian, and third, we must take on both the fundamental truth that this mission makes very clear. that today and into the future, territorial defense begins far beyond our borders. that understanding must be an important part of shaping nato's

future. ladies and gentlemen, i have come to nato as a reformer, and i do not intend to deviate from that mission. secretary albright is leading a team of 12 experts i have selected to start the process of drafting a new strategic concept for data -- for nato. not to say what i think the conclusions should be. they will arrive at their own results. but i can tell you what i think should be principles that guide their work. they should be ambitious but realistic with regard to resources. they should be firmer on the court tact of nato, defense of

our territory and populations but flexible in their understanding of what that means in the 21st century. they should see nato not as an island but as an organization that needs to be more fully anchored and engaged in the international system. they will submit their report to me next spring, and there was the process of negotiation among allies that will see a new strategic concept approved at a summit in portugal next fall. i can assure that there'll be a nato that is more modern, more out were looking, and more capable than ever of providing security for its members, but i

am convinced that some things in nato will not change. we will stand united for, as abraham lincoln put it, "a house divided against itself cannot fall." the united states will continue to be the ultimate guarantor of peace and security in europe, and america's allies in nato will remain your closest friends, your most reliable partners, your brothers in arms. and nato will remain the home in which now almost 1 billion people are safe and secure. thank you very much. [applause]

>> mr. secretary general, thank you for making a truly important statement on nato, on afghanistan, and also the u.s. relationship with afghanistan and with choosing the atlantic council as a place to do it. i do want to think general jones and you, mr. secretary general. senator hagel's opening remarks, but let me start the questioning by getting back in the good graces of my chairman by quoting from his book, and it is a brilliant book. and he quotes lincoln. the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the present, occasions piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion. so as things are a new, we must act anew, and then, we shall save our country.

u.s. and say we must disenthrall ourselves, so here is my question. things are going to have to change is what i think he said. certainly, general mcchrystal's top-secret closely held report says things are going to have to change. secondarily, what impact does that report have on our allies? on the one hand, people say the u.s. gets more deeply involved with more troops, then you backed off, saying this is an american organization. we can relax now. others say there is the same outcome that will be reached, so i am wondering if you can speak to that. what effect this could have on the allies? >> yes, first of all, i would

say basically the views presented by general mcchrystal, and his assessment opens a more comprehensive approach in addressing the problems and afghanistan. he clearly states that there is no military solution. we have to step up our endeavors with the civil reconstruction an issue and more population- centric approach. basically, i agree with his recommendations. it would be premature to make any judgments. now we have to go through his initial assessment and analysis,

discuss it within the alliance, agree on the approach, and then we can make a decision on resources, but one thing is clear to me. we need more resources for our training mission in afghanistan. to develop the capacity of the afghan security forces, and therefore, i would urge all allies, including the european allies, to provide more sources for the training mission, trainers, and also financial contribution to ensure that we can actually find -- fund an increased number of afghan troops. >> thank you very much. i will ask one more question and then turn to the audience, and i will try to get you in as much as possible in the order with which you raise your hands. missile defense. you spoke briefly about that.

this is a big topic at the moment. one argument is the way -- one argument in the press is the way it was done without consultation hurts u.s. relationships with allies. we had a pentagon official where he actually talked pretty compellingly about nato could get much more involved now with a land-based system, including poland and the czech republic and others. do you see this actually as more of a chance for nato, where do you see this as something that could be disruptive? -- or did you see this as something that could be disruptive? >> first, i want to slightly correct you. on the contrary, i appreciate very much that the united states consulted and briefed

nato allies before announcing this decision, and i consider the new missile defense plans more flexible, more inclusive than the previous plans, and in that respect, it accommodates wishes expressed by a number of european allies, so i look very much forward to a process in which nato will be strongly engaged, and that will also be beneficial for let's put it that way, some of our eastern allies who might be concerned about this, because the new plans

allow flexible and decentralized systems that can include all allies and protect all allies. >> oh this is better? >> yes. -- so this is better? >> yes. >> please headend by yourself. >> i am a former u.s. ambassador to nato, and i want to thank you for what you said about afghanistan. obviously, this is the issue of the hour for our country, and i appreciate your leadership. i want to ask you to address one more point that you made, perhaps with more specifics. i was the u.s. ambassador to nato when the u.s. made the decision to go into afghanistan i know we in the united states saw that as a combat mission

given the pharaohs, taliban and al qaeda, and we were good to see so many allies respond to that. i agree with you that we do not want to have a war of words about who is contributing, but could you address looking forward what your hopes would be for the contributions members could make both on the civilian side of the counterinsurgency and the military side, and on the military side, the largest military contributor just had an election, germany, and angela merkel was reelected. that they could work discussion that would allow germany to take its place, should germany require it, alongside combat troops from my country and many other countries? thank you. >> thank you very much. of course, a very tough question, and you know that.

many give you a general answer. -- let me give you a general answer. for our commanders in the fields, it nations allowed a more flexible use of troops -- if nations allowed and more flexible use of troops. we have spoken of the so-called caveats, and i would urge allies to allow as much flexibility as possible in the use of their troop contributions in afghanistan. that is my general remarks. more specifically, you referred to germany. and i know this question as very often been up for discussion.

i think it is fair to say the we should take into consideration germany's history. and also take into consideration that it was really a huge step forward when germany actually decided to contribute to our mission in afghanistan. you should not underestimate the importance and significance in that step in domestic german politics, so i think that we should realize that this is a gradual process, so i do not participate in germany bashing. i think we should recognize their contribution and let it be a gradual, a gradual, development, but then let me

return to my introductory remarks. i would, nevertheless, the urge all allies to allow flexible use of their troops in afghanistan. >> it could also be said some of the dangers of the north are looking a little bit like the dangers of the south these days. >> the situation has changed, partly because we have stepped up endeavors in the south, and this is the reason why the taliban has spread their activities. >> another nato ambassador, robert hunter, a former nato ambassador. >> thank you very much. if we just do former nato ambassadors, we would be here all night. mr. secretary general, thank you for what you said. you are the nato leader, but if i could raise something about the union, given about the reconstruction and development or the police training,

forelock, for agrarian development, is there a chance of getting more effort out of the european union and asa european countries -- and also european countries? your own country has shown extraordinary leadership. we had an example today on the negative side. when nato ally that makes it difficult to have cooperation with the union. do you see anything that could make that to change? because that is one thing that could inspire people on this side to see that europeans are pulling their weight with us. >> and absolutely relevant question. as prime minister of denmark, i continuously urged colleagues in the european union to put afghanistan higher on the agenda -- and absolutely relevant question. -- an absolutely relevant

question. they have put afghanistan higher on the agenda, and i think it is very much a question of how we formulate our strategy. we do not need a new strategy, but i would say a slightly changed approach to implement the strategy we have already laid down, and i think it will be easier to get the european governments to increase their contributions if they can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and this is the reason why i speak about transition, also concerning security, that we should expand our training mission in afghanistan. i consider it easier for european countries to contribute to our training mission with personnel as well as with finance and with combat troops

to speak directly about it, so i think there might be a fair chance that includes seeing an increase in european contributions. >> there is a woman in the back who has been quite patient. >> thank you. i am not an ambassador. i am not an ambassador, thank you for a chance to ask a question. i would like to ask about the nato expansion to the east. the ukraine is the only country who are actually taking part in all peacekeeping operation of the alliance, and ukraine is not a member of the alliance, but this membership for the ukraine is still an open question. my question is, what are the major obstacles for ukraine to become a member of the alliance? thank you. >>