i think trine is right. regardless what is written in the ddpr, these problems are going to solve themselves in the midterm and we node to start thinking creatively about how we're going to put that to our advantage. >> thank you all. we're out of time. we'll be returning to this panel many of these subjects, missile defense, tactical nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons strategy, deeper reductions in u.s./russian arsenals at future events. i want to -- before i ask you to join me in thanking our panelists, i want to invite the next panel to get ready to hop up here because we're going to resume without a break. so if you do need a break, you're welcome to do so during the course of the next session. but please join me in thanking general dirk jameson, trine flockhart, and john wolfsthal. [ applause ] >>> also from an event hosted by the arms control association, former ambassador thomas pickering said today it was extremely hard to see how talks over iran's nuclear program will move forward. the ambassador sugg

the challenge is the non strategic weapons where trine's thought of valuable. transparency measures are needed. the u.s. should do that up front. we need to find a way to manage the alliance so the withdrawal of those weapons don't lead to a new schism but we should give russia a year privately and if they don't move within that time period say we're going alone and push them to come with us. >> general jameson? >> the only thing i would add is until the election anything that even hints of doing something unilaterally is not going to be on the table. the process and i certainly agree with john crimes in the pentagon that inside the belt way things are going -- and interagency wants it to happen and some of those things are budget driven and save as much as they can realistically and it is not going to be agreements with russia or anything. that is my opinion. >> other questions? right there in the middle, bruce. >> bruce macdonald with the u.s. institute of peace. it is safe to say with in this room there's a broad consensus in support of further reductions an

. >> trine. jon, maybe as well. trine, go ahead. >> well, obviously, a precondition would be that nato would be willing to give the transparency as well. it's not a one-way street. everyone knows where the nuclear weapons are. everyone knows how many are there. i think by now, so there's not really that much on those issues. but i think the issues would be much more on the storage and the site security that would be issues that would be interesting on both sides and russia would have an interest in getting to know some of those issues, particularly also on the issue of the old storage sites in what has happened to the old surrogate storage sites in central and eastern europe. i think there would be some room for maneuver there, but clearly, nato will have to move on the transparency issue as well. >> i mean, i think the challenge l in this as you well know is that russia's not really concerned about our tactical weapons in europe. we can't leverage whatever weapons we have there against what the russians have becaus

trine, thanks for being with us. the floor is yours. >> thank you and thank you for inviting me. i'm really honored to speak to a such distinguished audience and i'm so pleased to be in washington. it's always a treat to come to washington. in my studies, it seems nato is nuclear addicted, so the question that i've asked myself after the publication of the deterrence review is nato still nuclear addicted? although now with the problems that nato is considering not to have the drugs lying around in europe, as long as its codependent russia is going to do the same. i suspect this is not a position with great prospects. darren has asked me to give a brief review, which is known for short at the ddpr. in it has somehow slipped your attention, don't blame yourself. you could say since the announcement at the lisbon summit about 18 months ago, it has turned into a secret review process. started out being something that was agreed to save the concept because germany had launched the question of nuclear weapons and no one could agree to that to get into the strategic concept. the agreeme

thank you spent jon, trine?well, the relationship with russia, as i'm sure you know, is worse than it was at lisbon but it is better than it was in 2008. so i think it's a string. it's difficult to say with relationship with russia is but i think we also have to take into account that all the negative developments are not completely without reason. i think that the offer that was given at lisbon for missile defense cooperation sounded much better than what it actually is but i have great difficulty in seeing what rush can actually gain from what is being offered from nato. so perhaps it's not surprising that there has been a downturn in the relationship, and then on top of that a russian presidential election, which is also being important for that relationship, because nato is perceived in russia as the enemy, in the public it's very difficult to go out and say well, now we are france with nato. nato has been painted as the big devil and it will continue to be the big devil in russian public for a long time to

we're also very pleased to have with us trine flockhart, who will provide us with a european perspective on the recently completed defense and posture review issued at the recent nato summit and also, her thoughts on possible steps for dealing with the leftover tactical nuclear arsenals of the united states and europe as well as russia and after their opening remarks, we'll take your questions and we'll have discussion and so i welcome you to the meeting. >> thank you very much. it's a real pleasure to be here. i note from the smattering of gray hair and talk of some reunions that most of you have lived through a good portion of the cold war and some of you probably are saying what was the cold war. it's also very reassuring to me that among all of you, i'm probably the least expert of what goes on inside the beltway. i call myself an operator. by some strange occurrence of events, i ended up going through the cold war in positions that gave me i think a unique window on to the operational side of thipgs and in that sense, the urgency of finding a new way in this 21st century. i know it'

buey trined s dwhmee li i aroldd.ag hu ter'sd ife whe ofliearlroa miion chan d byonathuns 'ssd ife eoploflikerlou.minionyoubyloveato th resc.ompl. sedonaou todve.thsc >>> l rit. > rialtoo wealo famiarithamrh the numbs. onin tee ks isithe overightr obe, a i he mes,mbut dre on are tbout kolutisns ohethis obproghtm. dischen f edsaevint re s,stro aogutut o iis ron psciatredian ino unch i "dun p ttrn j ch usi the ingsunhat he tovedas ajsi le gstended hp-ho sic t btb hlp kid l hrnho w c a h tlthyi hid l deded seeea hhy r mysef. ♪ dued heee jnk ♪ se♪ ♪owyhe at's e j ♪ at upup♪s >>in mcommity acti i s hang ks co in at re 3earsld a the♪were >>morb mly ommse, y d thti did knha wha kwascon happ , o3rrs ahere boides. knfelthas nppg hr st thr bo. lfeeut rn but nhe tern h mage haen i to geha into t bods. so felapprriaty potion to somhingbou . luckuys, tish od loo so ve s iprave atcrea onanpoi waomed tngcreaut a c to a >>gages,ids h d exoote tckm so ite s teaeir san eatges ex t soi to it tr alth >> do dusi thetoatunk? ye >> >>heou er tink k? ightgye >>chilood oesit t figk htke is, ilis idwhat i oit tak ig metis. ♪, yo

the better of the argument but basically, felix action am i correct in saying the president says trinesl things will get better and romney is saying. they haven't and blame him. >> if you elect democrats to both houses of congress and everything goes my way and i manage to push through my apology, then maybe i can make things better but if i get re-elected president and we have the republicans in control of one of the houses, then nothing is going to happen. >> that's a pretty dismal gloomy look. but let's focus on the economics for a minute. you watched and listened to that speech. did you hear an economic idea in the president's speech that was different from what we have heard over the past 18 months, two years, even three years? >> i detected a little bit of going to the right. in his jobs speech he was going sort of full-bore keynesian. in this speak, he was saying i want to bring down government spending to the lowest it's been in 60 years. i am going to be a moderate. i don't believe government can create jobs. i want to help you guys in the middle and this kind of thing. i think

buey trined s dwhmee li i aroldd.ag hu ter'sd ife whe ofliearlroa miion chand byonathuns 's e from eoploflikerlou.minyou a stglno the if d prayties girlou ast epresrl atheba. >>his so ae baming. i >>els etion asoouis.mg. th ewi dllas eon a preerin nts. moh on th dastnrein n molarron gmanndindatngray a rr anda ay apatrkduff wh tr onicffrol. e y w sti ic aol hopess d ynk?ti op smean n thshowd? >> he aneredy qstio that a qutionto me.anth ow th ha ens h aanedhe q tiio. at qu havonou ceo. thas agrip whti yo alc ol p blemav c i tnkipave w i ome yolc pem g ips th . t ie tttede ff to gs e land i ted wito e ndianhanndit ft hi for n n mcane. se wan.an hir mce. w. s j.r any bett baved the.r daynytt to bedm theay >> om u lo r>>arkay ne ts that lo clip rka n t >> t do weat tru him?ip , >>n doweru >> nm? il son.n he'not ev n. n. >> qual e' evitl evr. misuerstd. >>eas lialleitvi of sust >>lifan. 90%vil. meabou how bob is. 0% l. volv.meouow >> hsob jst swe . at c i lv hsay je >> o ceaseay >> oheseatrich the eingri hefami. hes thjock eging. >> fl in hemi hegapthckg. >> fin beeenapheast nd e currt,ent whd havyou en u

buey trined s dwhmee li i aroldd.ag hu ter'sd ife whe ofliearlroa miion chand byonathuns 's e from eoploflikerlou.minp flyghtts t tsf-2ly rapt are r me t lily touffef-2 eathg proems ptd actu lye m li otfe ick hanth onros bodtuothe u. airorce ckjen.n oourd peheagon u.irceorreonde, chs laencehasje mor onthis rpe oninveigatn. chres. de wolch we'la beeces taoringoon is ou urceveat anchwe'r ith ole'eeta gegingery ouclosce to anrack'rgthegy os thto mysryck orboutoopen uthysomplely orut enw pa uply pa ofhe invtigaon. imofine u cat b athenvga. or acki outimene ca bheilesr off t ki ut grnd gng tweesff t t sed ogrf g tw und. 's hpeneto plots the t s o f- d.te h tinesas pts of nhe as an f-her t. ti t thairforc bieves ian is r clos to thr soingrche bve m iterys os who so g thi is t mry g-vt. wh cnas hisearn t tha av cn rcern invtigahars fod pres are vtsillg w h a e en tnvy gashoun't. fo 's s posees voll w aexpa a tcontct toufight. he sse fectofpa a sere nt tghg-foes. t sctrcesay se it y strtfo. ses pits' brehingtnd tr pi'reng cae hh po ca hya. po>> iind erytnga. id ytnny. >> y. zingexpeenci it dung tining silati

it is difficult to see legislation that is purely focus on a single tape elegy subsidy or priority trine enough support to last. i think we've got to envision how we're going to move this through the process. and to find success, will need to pare legislation that for instance, increases oil and gas legislation on federal land was focused on legislation. if we can agree to do that, i think you have the makings of a package that most members will be comfortable with. but she's got to find that balance fair. and make some hard decisions about the extent of the federal government rule. the past several years i think we have seen some pretty remarkable advances in new technologies like horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing. it is new that industry did most of the work and it didn't detect ologies and it is also true to the government played a role in the early stages of development when there is less reason for the dirt to be interested. i think these examples should be applied today. the federal government can help fund research that would otherwise not be undertaken. but our job is not