    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          ASSESSING THE CHALLENGES FACING NATO

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                     OF THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  June 4, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-21

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov, http://docs.house.gov,
                           or http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-400 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                        BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Chairman
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York,
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey         Ranking Member
    JOE WILSON,, South Carolina          BRAD SHERMAN, California
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    DARRELL ISSA, California             WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              AMI BERA, California
    MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee             JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  DINA TITUS, Nevada
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 TED LIEU, California
    YOUNG KIM, California                SARA JACOBS, California
    MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
    BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan                  Florida
    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       GREG STANTON, Arizona
        American Samoa                   JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
    JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    THOMAS H. KEAN, JR, New Jersey       JIM COSTA, California
    MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             GABE AMO, Rhode Island
    CORY MILLS, Florida                  KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
    RICHARD McCORMICK, Georgia           PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    GEORGE LATIMER, New York
    RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana               JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI Jr, Maryland
    JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
    ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida           SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
    JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana            BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania

                  James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director
                     Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE

                           KEITH SELF, Texas, Chairman
     MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas            WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts,
     JOE WILSON, South Carolina              Ranking Member
     MARK GREEN, Tennessee                DINA TITUS, Nevada
     YOUNG KIM, California                JIM COSTA, California
     WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                GABE AMO, Rhode Island
     ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida           JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
                                          SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware

                   Michael Koren, Subcommittee Staff Director

                            C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                                REPRESENTATIVES

                                                                       Page
    Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Keith Self............     1
    Opening Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member William Keating.     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Statement of Rear Admiral (Retired) Mark Montgomery, Ccti Senior
      Director and Senior Fellow, Foundation for The Defense of
      Democracies....................................................     4
      Prepared Statement.............................................     7
    Statement of Nile Gardiner, Director, Margaret Thatcher Center
      for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation...........................    21
      Prepared Statement.............................................    23
    Statement of Hon. Julianne Smith, Former U.S. Permanent
      Representative to Nato, U.S. Department of State...............    27
      Prepared Statement.............................................    29

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    60
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    61
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    62

                            Material for the Record

    Rep. Davidson material for the record............................    63

                            Questions for the Record

    Questions to Mark Montgomery submitted by Chairman Keith Self....    73
    Questions to Nile Gardiner submitted by Chairman Keith Self......    76
    Questions to Julianne Smith submitted by Chairman Keith Self.....    78

                      ASSESSING THE CHALLENGES FACING NATO

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, June 4, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                                 Subcommittee on Europe
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
    room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Keith Self
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Self. The Subcommittee on Europe will come to order.
    The purpose of this hearing is to provide members with an
    informed perspective of the U.S. policy toward NATO and an
    opportunity to discuss NATO's trajectory in advance of the June
    summit in The Hague.
        I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN KEITH SELF

        The Hague will be focused on funding for NATO. This first
    chart--and would you put it up and blow it up as much as you
    can-shows the NATO nations. They are listed top to bottom by
    GDP. They are listed on the right side by the percentage that
    they provide. Can you blow that up more?
        Okay, so I want to just talk you through this. Of course
    U.S. is at the top, almost $29 trillion in GDP. Then you go
    down to Germany, U.K., France, Italy, Canada, and Spain. Down
    here you have got the front-line countries, you have got
    Lithuania, you have got Latvia, you have got Estonia. Some of
    the Balkan countries are down below.
        The ones that I want to point--and the summit tells us that
    they are going to be going above 3 percent.
        So I want to point out right here, we have got some, the
    major economies in NATO, specifically France, Italy, and
    Canada, that are well below--Italy, Canada, and Spain, I am
    sorry, that are well below their current 2 percent of
    commitment. These are major economies, this is a major change
    that needs to happen at the summit. Next slide.
        Now, just a couple of comparisons. This compares Poland to
    everyone else on the Eastern Flank, the Eastern Flank being
    defined as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, and
    Hungary. Poland has a GDP of about $840 billion. Eastern Flank
    is 890. So they are not dissimilar.
        The defense budgets are quite a bit dissimilar. Their
    percentage, though, Poland is at over 4 percent currently and
    going higher. The Eastern Flank is at 2.36 and going higher,
    and it has already committed to go higher. Next slide.
        And one more just to give you an idea of where funding in
    NATO stands, this is Germany versus the Eastern Flank. So we
    have added Poland to the east of Germany. So Germany has the
    4.6, Eastern Flank has 1.7. Here are the defense budgets. Look
    at this: the Eastern Flank is providing a higher percentage
    than Germany is.
        So my point in all of these three slides is there is work
    to do in the summit later this month. Now, I know that people
    have made commitments, but what you just saw were 2024, the
    last we had a full year's funding toward NATO. That is a major
    problem that I wanted to highlight. We have got other issues in
    this briefing, but that is the one that I wanted to start with.
        The first thing we have to start with is everyone pulling
    their weight in NATO. With that, I yield back, and I recognize
    the ranking member----
        Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Self. Mr. Keating.
        Mr. Costa. Can I make a question inquiry to the chair?
    Those are important charts that you just presented. Could you
    make copies so that we could look at them here and----
        Mr. Self. Let's have copies made so----
        Mr. Costa. Shouldn't be that difficult for the staff.
        Mr. Self. And pass out. Absolutely, so we can do it now,
    Okay.
        Mr. Costa. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Costa, we will do that.
        Mr. Keating. I don't know if this is working. How is this?
    Oh, good, all right, here we go. Thank you.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER WILLIAM KEATING

        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    important hearing today, and I want to thank our witnesses for
    their participation in today's hearing.
        More than 75 years ago in the wake of World War II, the
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established to forge a
    safe, secure, and prosperous transatlantic alliance. From its
    inception, NATO's founding charter and its Article 5 principle
    of collective defense have been the underpinning of our
    national security and that of our European partners as well.
        We saw this in action after 9/11, when our allies
    sacrificed treasure and blood in our defense. NATO's necessity
    came into full view in February 2022, when the Russian
    Federation initiated a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Since
    the invasion, NATO has marshaled billions of dollars in
    military support to the Ukrainians, who have defended the front
    line of freedom at great human cost.
        During the 2024 Washington Summit, support of Ukraine
    within NATO was clear as allies agreed that Russia remains the
    most significant and direct threat to the security of the
    alliance. Just 1 year later, the Russian threat to NATO remains
    all-oppressing and the more real.
        At that summit, NATO allies also agreed to increase defense
    spending to build on the alliance deterrence. Countries like
    Poland and the Baltic States have well exceeded the 2-percent
    mark, while others, like the United Kingdom and Germany, have
    committed to pass legislation to ensure their defense spending
    increases in accordance with the alliance's requirements.
        Meanwhile, other countries have lagged behind the 2-percent
    mark, and it is absolutely imperative that all allies commit to
    adequate defense spending levels at the upcoming NATO summit in
    The Hague.
        Unfortunately, NATO continues to face serious threats to
    its security. The Trump administration, its policy toward NATO
    has been inconsistent and chaotic. It is no wonder that the
    alliance is just confused about where Trump and his cabinet are
    in these critical issues.
        On the war in Ukraine, Trump's Secretary of State has said
    Russia started it. Meanwhile, President Trump said Ukraine
    started it. Trump's Secretary of the Treasury says Putin is a
    war criminal. Trump's chief negotiator for Russia, Steve
    Witkoff, said Putin is not a bad guy, and that he is
    trustworthy.
        Secretary of State often said Putin was a war criminal.
    When I questioned him 2 weeks ago, Secretary of State wouldn't
    say that. At the United Nations, the Trump administration
    abandoned our allies on a resolution, siding with Russia,
    Belarus, and North Korea. It is no wonder Trump's Ambassador to
    Ukraine, Bridget Brink, resigned, citing policy disagreements.
        As we approach the 76th NATO summit in The Hague later this
    month, the Trump administration must take advantage of the
    opportunity and set the record straight.
        First, the administration must not step back from its
    leadership role in NATO. Reported proposals to abandon the
    Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, their European position,
    or reduce the focus that is there in the force posture in
    Europe, because any of this will do nothing but harm the
    deterrent effect of our alliance.
        Second, the Trump administration must continue to encourage
    allies and partners to spend more on defense. I know this
    sentiment is bipartisan, and I want to thank Secretary General
    Rutte for, as well as former Secretary General Stoltenberg and
    Ambassador Smith, for your work on doing this in the previous
    administration.
        Third, the Trump administration must make clear at the
    upcoming NATO summit that the United States and the entire
    alliance is prepared to increase the cost on Russia for its
    ongoing war of aggression in Ukraine.
        This must start with acknowledging the facts on the ground,
    something that the Secretary of State was unable to do when he
    testified before this committee last month. This includes
    telling the truth. Russia is the aggressive State. Vladimir
    Putin is a war criminal who has carried out atrocious crimes in
    Ukraine, including the kidnaping of 20,000 children.
        And the United States must hold the Kremlin accountable for
    this war and the horrific crimes Russia has committed in its
    wake. Anything less represents a failure of American leadership
    and an inability to uphold key American values.
        Finally, the Trump administration must buildupon the prior
    administration's effort to expand NATO's relationship with the
    Indo-Pacific countries. Russia's war in Ukraine has a direct
    implication on the Taiwan Strait, and ensuring robust
    relationships with our Indo-Pacific allies is vitally important
    for this transatlantic relationship.
        I want to thank our witnesses again for being here, and I
    yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Self. Other members of the committee are reminded that
    opening statements may be submitted for the record.
        We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses
    before us today on this important topic. I was extremely
    impressed with the written testimony of all three.
        I would like to start and introduce and Rear Admiral
    (Retired) Mark Montgomery, CCTI Senior Director and Senior
    Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
        Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL MONTGOMERY

        Admiral Montgomery. Chairman Self, Ranking Member Keating,
    distinguished members of the committee, on behalf of the
    Foundation for Defense of Democracies, thank you for having me
    here to testify.
        Look, we are here to discuss the future of NATO, the
    alliance that successfully led the western democracies through
    the cold war and the U.S. triumph over the Soviet Union.
        And I think that while the political, security, and
    economic dynamics have changed markedly over the past 30 years,
    I firmly believe that NATO can still serve as the organizing
    principle that guides the transatlantic alliance through the
    challenges posed by a really rapacious, authoritarian State,
    Russia, as well as the Chinese-led axis of aggressors that
    really supports and enables Russia.
        For far too long, many of our NATO allies have ignored
    these threats. They have failed to invest in the alliance.
    Chairman Self's diagram showed you that. They have even failed
    to invest in their own defense. And warnings by successive
    Republican and Democratic presidents went unheeded for 30
    years.
        However, thanks to Vladimir Putin's violent military
    aggression against Ukraine and its persistent efforts to
    undermine democratic governments in the Balkans and throughout
    Eastern Europe, and combined with President Trump's vocal
    complaints about European defense spending, we are starting to
    see NATO members finally stepping out to the plate.
        I, too, appreciate Secretary General Mark Rutte as he has
    directed NATO member-he anticipates now that NATO members will
    agree to increase their defense spending target to 5 percent of
    gross domestic product, GDP, at the NATO summit in June. This
    increased spending is essential, and President Trump has been
    right to call out the previous European apathy on this issue.
        And that reason is because Russian and Chinese threats
    challenge the territorial integrity, democratic stability, and
    economic prosperity of NATO. Neither Russia nor China will be
    cajoled or coddled into compliance or even peaceful
    coexistence. And both Europe and America need to recognize that
    we are in a long-term fight with the axis of aggressors.
        But between these two authoritarians, the chief threat to
    peace and democracy in Europe is Russia. And Putin is not some
    misunderstood regional leader or an aggrieved actor reacting to
    NATO expansion. He is instead a stone-cold killer. He has
    launched wars of conquest, invading his neighbors three times
    in the past 20 years.
        He has ruthlessly and violently crushed democratic
    movements growing in his hinterlands. And he is currently
    harassing, torturing, and murdering his domestic critics.
        If NATO is going to prevail against this Russian menace, it
    is going to need U.S. leadership. It is going to need European
    defense investments. And it is going to need collective action
    to punish its adversaries.
        My written testimony covered ten recommendations to achieve
    success. I would like to highlight five of them here. First is
    the one Chairman Self highlighted: we need to establish and
    maintain NATO defense spending targets at 5 percent of GDP.
        NATO's national governments, even those not within range of
    Russia's long-range fires, must commit to Secretary General
    Rutte's proposed new spending pledge of 3.5 percent of the GDP
    on defense and another 1.5 percent on defense enablers, like
    their industrial base, infrastructure protection, and cyber
    security. This includes the United States.
        Second, we need to act to protect the critical
    infrastructure essential to NATO's military mobility. Moving
    troops and equipment efficiently over land, sea, and air is
    essential to NATO's ability to project power and sustain forces
    to fight and win our wars.
        European countries must prioritize critical infrastructure
    spending to align with NATO's war plans, not their domestic
    plans, particularly as it relates to flowing U.S., U.K., and
    French forces into and through Europe.
        Third, we need to maintain U.S. enablers and force posture
    in Europe. NATO strength is measured by how quickly it can move
    and fight. That speed depends on U.S. enablers, our strategic
    lift, our operational logistics, our intelligence, our command-
    and-control infrastructures.
        These are capabilities that no other NATO ally can provide.
    That is why forward-stationing U.S. forces and equipment across
    Europe is essential to NATO's warfighting capacity. The answer
    to this challenge from Russia is not for America to do less,
    but for Europe to do more.
        Fourth, we need to arm Ukraine to defend itself and survive
    and not force Ukraine to agree to an unacceptable cease-fire
    negotiated under duress, or even worse, to lose the war.
        And Ukraine needs two things above all else. First, they
    need constant U.S. intelligence support. And second, they need
    access to the American-made munitions for them or for Europe to
    purchase.
        And then fifth, we have to punish Russia for its
    aggression. Putin will only change his calculus if the cost of
    continuing the war becomes unsustainable for him. The United
    States and Europe must increase pressure and impose costs on
    Russia by ramping up sanctions on the Russian war machine,
    starting with its energy revenues and the shadow fleet of
    fossil fuel deliverers that support that.
        In summary, I think we need a comprehensive transatlantic
    effort: defense budget that reflect today's challenges, the
    resilience to withstand assaults from adversaries, and a clear-
    eyed commitment to the alliance. If we have those three pillars
    in place, the United States and its European allies will once
    again prevail over the forces that threaten peace and security,
    both in Europe and globally.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Admiral Montgomery follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Mr. Self. Thank you, Admiral. We had a clock malfunction,
    just like they do in basketball games. But thank you for your
    testimony.
        I now introduce Dr. Nile Gardiner, Director of the Margaret
    Thatcher Center for Freedom and Bernard and Barbara Lomas
    Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
        Welcome, sir. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF NILE GARDINER

        Mr. Gardiner. My name is Nile Gardiner, I am the Director
    of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage
    Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own.
    My remarks today are a summary of my written statement.
        NATO remains the essential force that holds back the
    Russian bear on its eastern flank and keeps in check the
    imperialist ambitions of Vladimir Putin's murderous regime. Its
    role is vital in the defense of Europe in the face of Russian
    aggression.
        Without NATO, the brutal reality is that Russian forces
    would very likely today be rolling into the Baltic States and
    deep into Europe. We should not underestimate Putin's
    malevolent intentions and his desire to conquer further
    territory in Europe.
        To sustain the alliance, America's NATO allies must fully
    participate in burden-sharing with the United States. The Trump
    presidency is rightly applying pressure on America's allies to
    do far more to foster true partnership rather than dependency,
    especially as the U.S. must increasingly focus on the immense
    threat from communist China in the Indo-Pacific.
        This cannot be a two-tier alliance where the United States
    carries the overwhelming military burden for the defense of the
    free world while some European allies build vast welfare
    states. In 2024, only 22 NATO members spent the 2-percent of
    GDP on defense agreed to by the alliance in 2014. This is
    hugely irresponsible.
        This includes some of the biggest nations in NATO,
    including Italy, Spain, and Canada. Last year, Canada
    embarrassingly spent just 1.4 percent of GDP on defense, a
    shockingly low figure for the world's tenth largest economy.
        As Heritage Foundation research has shown, European NATO
    members have collectively underfunded their own defense by $827
    billion since 2014, nearly equal to the entire annual U.S.
    defense budget. This is a staggering figure.
        As NATO leaders gather shortly in The Hague, there is,
    however, growing cause for optimism. President Trump's tough-
    love strategy has made a tremendous impact. In just the first
    few months of his presidency, Donald Trump has already
    significantly strengthened the resolve of the NATO alliance.
        President Trump is not the destroyer of NATO, as his
    critics allege, but the savior of NATO. Trump's presidency is a
    wake-up call for a complacent alliance that had been
    sleepwalking to decline and possible self-destruction.
        Thanks to U.S. leadership today, which was strikingly
    absent under Joe Biden, who was barely in command on the world
    stage, the complacency of past decades has been thrown out of
    the window.
        Since Donald Trump took office in January, there has been a
    dramatic change of approach among our 31 NATO partners,
    including Europe's economic powerhouse of Germany, with nearly
    every European NATO member announcing plans to significantly
    increase defense spending, enhance overall military
    capabilities, and grow the defense industrial base. This is the
    Trump effect in action across the Atlantic.
        But words are not enough. It is time for all of American's
    NATO allies to make a firm commitment to immediately match
    America's current spending level of 3.5 percent of GDP and
    pledge to raise defense spending to 5 percent of GDP.
        The U.S. also cannot allow NATO to be undercut by grandiose
    visions of a European Union army that would split the alliance
    and divert vital resources away from NATO. One of the biggest
    threats to the future of NATO is posed by French President
    Emmanuel Macron's calls for greater strategic autonomy for
    Europe, moving away from the United States and moving closer to
    an accommodation with Beijing.
        The United States must fight the flawed notion that
    Europe's security rests upon delusional ideas of a militarily
    powerful EU which would replace NATO nation-State cooperation
    with Brussels-imposed sovereign nationalism. Macron's perilous
    rhetoric is exactly what Russian President Vladimir Putin and
    Chinese Premier Xi Jinping wish to hear.
        The U.S. should also strongly opposed the massively
    reckless and incredibly dangerous decision taken by Britain's
    socialist government, led by Keir Starmer, to hand over direct
    control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a close Chinese
    ally. The islands are the home of the vital Anglo-American
    military base of Diego Garcia.
        This is a major gift to communist China at Britain's
    expense and greatly undermines U.S. strategic interests and
    NATO cohesion. The Chagos surrender is the worst foreign policy
    move by a British prime minister in the modern era, and a
    betrayal of the U.S.-U.K. special relationship.
        In conclusion, the United States has a significant national
    interest in supporting a strong NATO alliance. A secure Europe
    and a robust transatlantic alliance greatly advances the
    security of the American people.
        American exceptionalism is the most powerful force for
    liberty in the world today. It is greatly strengthened by
    American's alliances, and NATO is at the very heart of the
    transatlantic partnership. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gardiner follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Mr. Self. Thank you, sir. I now recognize Hon. Julianne
    Smith, former U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO at the U.S.
    State Department. Recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF MS. JULIANNE SMITH

        Ms. Smith. Chairman Self, Ranking Member Keating, members
    of the committee, thank you for the opportunity today to speak
    to you about NATO.
        For more than 75 years, NATO has been the bedrock of
    transatlantic security. From the cold war to the Balkans, from
    counterterrorism to cyber defense, the alliance has
    consistently adapted to meet new challenges. Yet NATO's
    enduring strength lies not only in its military might, but in
    the shared values of its members and their collective
    commitment to defend one another.
        For these past decades, NATO has superbly served both U.S.
    and European interests by keeping the peace in Europe, which
    allowed our economies to boom. In recent years, NATO has
    undergone one of its most significant transformations in
    decades.
        In response to Russia's vicious invasion of Ukraine, the
    alliance has shown historic unity and resolve. Every single
    member of the alliance has offered economic, humanitarian, or
    military support to Ukraine. And NATO launched a new NATO
    Ukraine council to enable Ukraine to sit at the table as an
    equal partner.
        NATO also welcomed two new members, Finland and Sweden, and
    on the Eastern Flank, NATO established for new multinational
    battalions, bolstering the alliance's forward defense posture
    from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
        At the same time, NATO has expanded its partnerships in the
    Indo-Pacific. That reflects our shared recognition that
    security challenges like cyber-attacks are increasingly global.
    In 2022, NATO mentioned China in its strategic concept for the
    very first time. And most critically, we have seen a striking
    rise in European defense spending.
        Allies are investing more in their own security. Today, 23
    allies spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense, up from six
    just 4 years ago. That momentum is set to accelerate.
        Later this month, NATO leaders will gather in The Hague for
    their annual summit. Allies are expected to announce a new
    commitment to spend 3.5 percent of GDP on hard defense and
    another 1.5 percent on related items like infrastructure. This
    is very good news.
        For decades, Europeans have under-invested in their own
    security, and due to Europe's generous military support to
    Ukraine in recent years, the current capability gaps in Europe
    are acute. We should celebrate this progress, but we must also
    be clear-eyed about some of the associated challenges, and let
    me mention just three.
        First, more money alone will not fix the fragmentation of
    Europe's defense industrial base. Without meaningful work to
    coordinate procurement, standardize requirements, and deepen
    defense industrial cooperation, this influx of funding runs the
    risk of simply reinforcing the inefficiencies that have long
    plagued European defense.
        Consider tanks. Unlike the U.S., which fields a single main
    battle tank, the M1, NATO's European members have more than a
    dozen different types of tanks. This kind of fragmentation
    complicates joint operations, undermines NATO's cohesion, and
    slows production and procurement. NATO must ensure that
    increased spending leads to increased capability, not just
    duplicated or siloed efforts.
        Second, spending needs a strategy, and right now the
    alliance lacks a coherent approach to dealing with Russia
    beyond deterrence. NATO's long-term posture remains unsettled,
    and so do our collection objectives regarding Moscow.
        NATO allies created a plan to tackle such questions when
    they committed last year to unveil a new Russia strategy during
    this year's summit in The Hague. But the alliance paused work
    on that strategy for fear that it might not reach consensus in
    the current political climate.
        That was a mistake. Without a clearly articulated and
    forward-looking Russia strategy, we risk losing the political
    rationale for sustained investment.
        Finally, the alliance today is grappling with a growing
    trust deficit, which is quietly shaping the way that allies
    approach increased defense spending. Many European governments
    worry that U.S. support for NATO is now conditional and subject
    to sudden shifts.
        Some allies worry about the recent U.S. shift away from
    support for Ukraine. These new uncertainties are leading allies
    to hedge their bets. Instead of making bold, long-term
    investments in shared NATO capabilities or better co-production
    efforts with the United States, some allies are focusing solely
    on capabilities made in Europe.
        Unless this trust gap is addressed directly with steady
    U.S. leadership, transparency, and a shared strategic vision,
    America's security will be undermined and the alliance as a
    whole will risk missing the full potential of the current
    momentum.
        In sum, NATO remains the most successful military alliance
    in history, and it is crucial to both U.S. and European
    security. But the way we manage this moment will define the
    next generation of transatlantic security.
        We must lead with vision, with principle, with humility.
    And we must invest wisely and anchor our efforts in strategy
    and solidarity.
        Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Smith follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Mr. Self. Thank you very much for three strong testimoneys.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        I want to start with, yes, I want to start with what I
    think is one of the most unstable areas of NATO, and that is in
    the Western Balkans. As you know, or may not know, General
    Cavoli told me in my recent visit with him that Bosnia and
    Herzegovina could collapse overnight.
        And you may remember back in 1999, NATO in actually their
    first operation, went to war for Kosovo by bombing Serbia. We
    now have, and if you look at the map, you have Slovenia, you
    have Croatia, there is Bosnia, there is Montenegro, there is
    Albania, there is Bulgaria, there is Romania surrounding three
    entities that are not part of NATO. Everyone I just named are
    part of NATO.
        You have got Bosnia-Herzegovina that is split between the
    Croata and the Republika Srpska. You have got Serbia, and you
    have got Kosovo. Kosovo wants to be, the President tells me
    that NATO membership of Kosovo is the most important issue for
    Kosovo. And yet we have four NATO members, some of whom
    actually were in NATO back in 1999, that participated in
    protecting Kosovo from Serbia.
        Now, I would like to start with you, Dr. Gardiner. What can
    we do to bring more stability to the western Balkans, which is
    a flashpoint, has been historically and traditionally a
    flashpoint, to bring stability to the western Balkans through
    admitting Kosovo to NATO? Is that a viable solution?
        Mr. Gardiner. Thank you very much for your question, Mr.
    Chairman. And I think the situation in the Balkans today is one
    of upheaval, ongoing crisis, especially with regard to Bosnia-
    Herzegovina, where we have a fundamental, I think, lack of
    national sovereignty, self-determination.
        You have in effect a sort of European elite that rules over
    Bosnia-Herzegovina, and we need to see, I think, the
    restoration of full sovereignty and self-determination. And I
    think as long as you have this E.U.-driven elite that actually
    in effect controls the Nation, you are not going to be able to
    move forward, and I think the tremendous tensions that exist
    within that region.
        With regard to Kosovo, I think great steps are being taken
    in terms of advances within the Nation. They clearly seek to be
    part of the NATO alliance. I think that with regard to Kosovo,
    there has been a lot of positive developments.
        I think we will have to assess how things move in the
    coming months and the next 2 years or so. But I have to say
    that there is growing optimism with regard to the broader
    outlook for Kosovo and for future participation in NATO. So I
    do remain optimistic on that point.
        Mr. Self. Thank you. Admiral Montgomery.
        Admiral Montgomery. I will take a slightly more aggressive
    approach and say that I think Serbia and the Republika Srpska
    are both bad actors who place Balkan stability at risk.
        I think their leaders, Vucic and Dodik, are thugs who are
    intentionally is trying to make the Republic of Bosnia largely
    a tinderbox. And Vucic has aims on eliminating Kosovar
    sovereignty.
        Our response needs to be strong. We need to support KFOR,
    the NATO force that is in Kosovo as a stabilizing force, make
    sure it is properly equipped and enabled with European and
    American support.
        But most importantly, we do need to move Kosovo along the
    path to further European integration, through both the European
    Union and NATO. And the United States needs to use its
    significant power to push countries like Spain who oppose this
    into doing the right thing and allow Kosovo to enter the
    broader European environment.
        Mr. Self. Thank you. Ambassador, I need to make one point.
    I appreciated your point about more money does not mean our
    industrial base is sufficient. And you pointed out that
    European industrial base, but our own industrial base needs
    reform and reenergized as well. Would you like to comment on
    that in my last 20 seconds?
        Ms. Smith. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    raising the western Balkans. Just quickly, this is a region
    that demands attention from three different corners of the
    world. NATO has to remain engaged, the European Union must stay
    engaged to continue to pursue diplomatic efforts to work toward
    peace.
        And the U.S. needs to show up and be present and engaged.
    If not, Russia and China are waiting in the wings and play a
    very active role in that neighborhood, trying to defy the folks
    in the region and divide Europe from the United States.
        Mr. Self. Thank you, my time is up. So to honor the time, I
    will have that question submitted to you in writing.
        I now recognize Mr. Keating, the ranking member.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ambassador Smith, I was curious too, and I think this is
    worth mentioning, the U.S. commitment to Ukraine just isn't one
    with NATO. As we are dealing with continued nuclear threats,
    particularly in Iran, we know the danger of those threats.
        Well, decades ago, there was a commitment made to Ukraine.
    Can you talk about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine before and
    why that commitment was so important?
        Ms. Smith. So there have been multiple-thank you, Ranking
    Member Keating-there have been multiple commitments to Ukraine
    over the years. First and foremost, the NATO alliance promised
    in 2008 that Ukraine would become a member of the alliance.
        But Ukraine has also gone through its own process of
    ridding itself of any sort of nuclear weapons program, with the
    hope that the United States and other countries would come to
    its aid and----
        Mr. Keating. How big an arsenal was that? I mean, it was
    the U.S., it was Russia. Where was Ukraine back then?
        Ms. Smith. It was significant.
        Mr. Keating. Was it the third?
        Ms. Smith. Not on the scale of Russia, but this was an
    arsenal that would have, had it remained, served as a very
    effective deterrent to Russia's aggression that we saw unfold
    in February.
        Mr. Keating. So the U.S. commitment was before even this.
        Ms. Smith. Indeed. Well before, well before.
        Mr. Keating. And that commitment said that the U.S. would
    defend aggression against Ukraine.
        Ms. Smith. Indeed.
        Mr. Keating. And so here we are. And now we have NATO
    allies-so I am curious, how many times has Article 5 been
    implemented by NATO?
        Ms. Smith. Only once, sir, and that was of course after 9/
    11----
        Mr. Keating. So who benefited from that?
        Ms. Smith [continuing]. here in the United States, when
    European allies came to our----
        Mr. Keating. We all benefited, but indeed, I was in
    Afghanistan and Iraq, I saw NATO soldiers. I saw them there
    defending, and many times unpopular in their own countries, the
    U.S. defense in that regard.
        I am curious, too, if Putin is successful in Ukraine,
    Admiral, what would that mean for U.S. investment? You know, we
    are talking a lot about money here. What about the cost of
    Putin being successful in Ukraine?
        What would NATO, what would the United States, do you
    believe, have to deploy in Eastern Europe, and how expensive
    would that be?
        Admiral Montgomery. Well, if he is successful in Ukraine, I
    don't think he will be, but if he was successful in Ukraine, it
    would put tremendous pressure on the Baltic States and Poland.
    The Suwalki Gap, the area that he would like to grab there, is
    very easy.
        So for us to counter that, it would take,--we already have
    a brigade in Poland, would take a division in Poland. We have
    battalions in the Baltic States, it would take brigades in the
    Baltic States. In other words, at a time when we are
    considering reducing our footprint in Europe, we would actually
    have to significantly increase at least those rotational
    forces.
        Mr. Keating. And wouldn't you say, in your experience,
    deployment of troops is far more expensive than assets?
        Admiral Montgomery. It is, yes, sir. And it would be a lot
    more expensive than the thirty-two or thirty-four billion
    dollars' worth of weaponry we provided.
        Mr. Keating. And we talked, too, about the need for our own
    country to do better in terms of procurement and dealing with
    our assets. But wasn't in fact-we were in a period of
    modernization in our own country, among armed services as well.
    And so we were modernizing our forces.
        And many of these outdated by our perspective assets were
    so useful to Ukraine. And wasn't, Ambassador Smith, wasn't the
    investment of U.S. dollars, most of that money stayed here, is
    that true? Most of it stayed here in jobs and to modernized our
    own? So we benefited by this investment, not just Ukraine.
        Ms. Smith. Absolutely. In many cases, Europeans have been
    purchasing equipment in the United States from our defense
    industrial base to send to Ukraine, as well as they have
    purchased equipment for their own use after they have donated
    more dated equipment to Ukraine.
        So these contributions have come back to the United States.
    And America's own commitments, the money that has been
    dedicated to Ukraine, has gone into building out our own
    capabilities as we have donated others.
        Mr. Keating. And how important, from a diplomatic
    standpoint, is it to be consistent? You know, I listen, as many
    people do, to the comments of Viktor Orban in Hungary and the
    things he is saying. How discordant is the comments by someone
    like Viktor Orban in Hungary in our effort?
        Ms. Smith. Well, it is disturbing to hear comments from our
    friends in Hungary that they have very mixed views on
    supporting Ukraine. They have found some smaller ways to
    support Ukraine. But this has been a challenge across the
    alliance to maintain that unity.
        But the key to it has been U.S. leadership. And when the
    U.S. leads, it brings the allies together.
        Mr. Keating. Quickly, I have got 6 seconds left. Would you
    say a savior of NATO would say you are on your own or go it
    alone? Does that make sense?
        Ms. Smith. No, no.
        Mr. Keating. Donald Trump said those. I yield back.
        Mr. Self. Thank you. I now recognize the representative
    from Ohio, Mr. Davidson.
        Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Chairman, thank our witnesses.
    Appreciate the timely hearing today.
        It works, just not well. So if the sound guy can do
    something about that, it would be great, but. So let me start
    over.
        So thank you for the hearing. It is timely, and I would ask
    unanimous consent to submit Vice President Vance's speech in
    Munich for the record.
        Mr. Self. Accepted.
        Mr. Davidson. The administration sets the foreign policy
    for our country, and the administration has been very clear
    where the Biden administration wasn't. The Biden administration
    never would define the mission in Ukraine. They would never say
    what exactly they want to accomplish.
        The Trump administration has been clear in Ukraine by
    saying we want to help restore peace. And that is what the
    President and Secretary of State and every other tool in the
    executive branch is trying to do, is to restore peace.
        When you look at Vice President Vance's speech in Munich,
    he asked the fundamental question: what exactly are we
    defending? And not just territory, but ideas and values.
        And I think it is noteworthy, because we see people from
    western Europe claiming asylum in Hungary so they don't go to
    jail for free speech or for participating in a political party
    like AfD. Or the now-majority party in Poland, or the winner of
    the Presidential election from the conservative party there.
        So you see values that are undermining the institution. And
    the United States, by funding NATO, essentially becoming the de
    facto security force for NATO, has enabled Europe to spend
    their money on everything but defense.
        We have served as their defense, and it has been the
    umbrella to which they have extended their membership eastward.
    So we are pulling security while they are undermining the
    values that made us the West, the values that when I was in
    Berlin walking through Checkpoint Charlie in the days after 9
    November 1989 that we said we were defending. And instead, it
    is the other way.
        So you know, Ambassador Smith, I just want to be clear
    because of this ongoing discussion about Ukraine, is Ukraine a
    NATO member country?
        Ms. Smith. It is not today.
        Mr. Davidson. I didn't think so. Yes, we are certain of
    that.
        Ms. Smith. It is one of NATO's closest partners.
        Mr. Davidson. But we seem to keep treating Ukraine as a
    member of NATO. Should we make Ukraine a member of NATO?
        Ms. Smith. The alliance agreed in 2008 and stated that
    Ukraine will someday become a member. Right now there is no
    consensus across the alliance to do so.
        Mr. Davidson. Yes, there is clearly not a consensus, and I
    think for good reason. Because if we brought Ukraine into NATO,
    we would immediately be in a State of war.
        One of the things that people like to refer to is Article
    5.
        So you know, Admiral Montgomery, you said in your testimony
    that, ``The U.S. posture in Europe gives NATO's Article 5 its
    teeth.'' I worry that, you know, that kind of proves my point
    that it enables the European Union member countries to
    basically rely on America's blanket of security and under-
    invest in their own.
        And I guess at some point, is your own view that Article 5
    would obligate us to fight a war, actually be immediately in a
    State of war, if a NATO member country was attacked?
        Admiral Montgomery. If there is an Article 5 violation
    determined by the alliance, then I think it is highly likely
    the United States would participate in that war. And I do think
    we are the enablers and there is no doubt, our GDP is equal to
    all of Europe.
        So it is likely that if we were all spending three point--
    five percent, we are currently spending, I know the graph said
    something else, but I think we spend about 3.02 percent, 3.025
    percent, to put a specific number on it on defense.
        We don't spend that-I mean, I got to be clear here, we are
    barely clear of the numbers we want them to get to. But if we
    are spending that much, and they spend that much, we will be
    able to secure ourselves and deter Vladimir Putin from doing
    things.
        My goal is not that we fight Article 5, but we make it
    clear to Putin that should you attack a treaty ally of ours
    like the Baltic States or Poland, we will hold you accountable.
    And therefore when he sees how strong we and Europe together-
    and I agree with you completely, Europe needs to carry its
    load. And Europe was apathetic for 30 years.
        But they are coming around, led by the Eastern Europeans.
    And even the President has acknowledged that the Eastern
    Europeans were spending four and now soon 5 percent, deserve
    our support. The President has spoken about the Baltics that
    way.
        Mr. Davidson. It is good and I am glad you acknowledge that
    Congress actually has the decision on whether we go to war. So
    Article 5 doesn't automatically trip it.
        You know, my time is largely expired here, but I just want
    to point out that, you know, President Eisenhower thought that
    if we were in NATO for 10 years, that we would have not
    succeeded in the mission of NATO. So I think it is worth
    questioning, as Vice President Vance did in Munich, what are we
    doing here.
        Mr. Self. Thank you, and I now recognize the representative
    from Nevada, Ms. Titus, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        All right, just taking a little different tack. We have
    seen Russia launch information attacks on European countries
    that are in sensitive political contexts, and we have seen it
    in Georgia, we have seen it in Moldova. It has also extended to
    NATO countries like Romania in their recent election.
        And all these attacks are aimed at causing confusion. They
    deepen political and social divisions. They destabilize
    societies. And the ultimate goal is weakening NATO, I believe.
        So Ambassador Smith, I will start with you. Can you tell us
    how NATO is working with allies, partners, and private sector
    actors to kind of identify, expose, and address and combat this
    foreign disinformation that is coming from Russia?
        Ms. Smith. Thank you very much, Representative, for raising
    Russia's hybrid tactics. They use a variety of tools to try and
    divide societies from within and divide Europeans from each
    other and Europe from the United States. They fly into NATO
    airspace, they use disinformation campaigns.
        There have been incidents of sabotage where suddenly we
    have seen arson attacks of warehouses full of weapons destined
    for Ukraine. We have seen undersea cables cut.
        So this is a standard playbook on the part of the Russians.
    NATO has increasingly turned to improving and strengthening its
    toolkit. We have better cyber security tools. We now exercise
    and train to test where we would hit that Article 5 threshold
    under some potential hybrid attack from Russia.
        We have better surveillance in the Nordic Baltic space,
    looking for incidents where they are about to clip another
    undersea cable. So NATO is the place where we can work hand in
    glove with our European allies to get a stronger and better
    toolkit to deal with Russian gray zone tactics.
        Ms. Titus. I am glad to hear we are doing those things, but
    at the same time, we are eliminating the Global Engagement
    Center. Can you address how that might work to our
    disadvantaged?
        Ms. Smith. Well, that is unfortunate, because right now in
    the U.S. Government, it seems that this administration is not
    placing any importance on those types of efforts to combat
    disinformation stemming from not only Russia, but Iran, from
    China. These countries work together to share messages to learn
    from one another in how they promote these pieces of
    disinformation.
        And the U.S. traditionally has been a leader in helping
    allies understand how to counter those efforts. But right now,
    with the elimination of the Global Engagement Center, we will
    likely not be the beating heart of those efforts going forward.
        Ms. Titus. I agree with you.
        Admiral Montgomery. Can I add one thing on that, ma'am? The
    Trump administration didn't get rid of the Global Engagement
    Center, Congress did. You allowed it to-its authorities to
    expire last December. And that was, I agree it is a mistake.
        But what the Trump administration has done has gotten rid
    of the Voice of America and most of the other distributions
    systems, which is a mistake. That tells the truth about America
    for people to hear. When I lived in the Soviet Union in the
    early 1980's, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe were what
    you could hear there to hear the American story.
        So I am disappointed in the Trump administration for that.
    But I don't blame them for the Global Engagement Center. You in
    Congress allowed that to expire in December of last year.
        Ms. Titus. I didn't. Don't say I did. But, yes, some did.
        Admiral Montgomery. You.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Titus. Okay. Well, you have done a few things too. Let
    me ask you this, shifting over here to you, Admiral. Excuse me
    for saying General.
        We are fixing to go to the NATO summit in The Hague. Now,
    we have got two allies in a part of the world that needs more
    and more attention, the eastern Mediterranean. So many things
    are happening in that area, from Israel, Syria, Lebanon, you
    name it.
        We got two NATO allies there. We got Greece and Turkiye.
    Greece is a friend, Turkiye is not such a reliable ally. What
    is the message we should be sending to Turkiye when we go to
    The Hague next week?
        Admiral Montgomery. I agree with you, and I am glad we are
    selling Greece F-35s. I think we should continue to sell Greece
    significant weaponry as necessary so they can do their job
    securing the Aegean and southeastern Europe.
        Turkiye needs to get a strong message from us that they
    should not be eligible for the F-35 until they completely give
    up the S-400. I am very concerned that the administration is
    going to, you know, remove one little part, direct the movement
    of one little part from the S-400, and then say Turkiye can buy
    F-35s. That is a mistake.
        Turkiye needs to be held accountable for its bad
    decisionmaking on the S-400's and on its support for Hamas. And
    I think that is strong message that needs to be delivered by
    the administration in The Hague and elsewhere.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative Mrs. Kim.
        Mrs. Kim. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Chairman Self
    and Ranking Member Keating, for holding today's hearing. And
    thank you for joining us today.
        I want to ask my first question to Mr. Montgomery. You
    know, NATO's ability to deter threats from Russia depends on a
    robust and responsive defense industrial base.
        However, Europe's defense industries face critical
    vulnerabilities in supply chains, production capacity, and
    procurement strategies, as highlighted by Russia's war against
    Ukraine. And with some NATO allies still falling short of the
    2-percent GDP defense spending pledge, that also limits
    investments in modernization and in readiness.
        So can you talk about the specific steps that NATO allies
    can take to address any vulnerabilities in Europe's defense
    industrial base, especially when it comes to critical munitions
    and advanced systems production?
        Admiral Montgomery. Thank you for bringing that up. And you
    are absolutely right. You know, as we look, as we sourced
    Ukraine over the last 3 years, 95 percent of what U.S. provided
    was U.S. equipment. But more than 50 percent of the western
    equipment provided by the Europeans was U.S. equipment. They do
    not have a effective defense industrial base.
        I also don't believe they can properly conceive of what is
    needed. It took you, Congress, 40 years to build the current
    defense industrial base and trillions and trillions of dollars
    in direct investment. And the Europeans have not made those
    commitments.
        And when I hear President Macron talk about a European
    solution to this, the amount of money he discusses is way too
    low. So the truth is the Europeans are going to need to rely on
    us over the next decade to rearm themselves, and they are also
    going to need to build their own defense industrial base.
        Mrs. Kim. Specifically, I need to ask how the United States
    can help European allies in overcoming those shortfalls. And at
    the same time, we need to ensure the interoperability within
    our alliance.
        Admiral Montgomery. I think we should take the Rheinmetall,
    that example we have right now with Rheinmetall, the German
    artillery firm, which is partnering with the United States,
    with U.S. firms so that they can scale their production
    properly.
        So, what I think is joint ventures between U.S. companies
    and European companies that build both in the United States,
    for jobs in the United States, but also in Europe, for jobs in
    Europe, with that European money. That is the most logical,
    cost-efficient way. It is not what the French are proposing,
    but I think long-term that is how NATO needs to settle out.
        Mrs. Kim. Next I want to talk about Russia and China.
        You know, in your testimony, Mr. Montgomery, you made it
    very clear that Russia under Putin is the, in quotes, ``single
    greatest threat to peace and democracy in Europe.''
        You also noted the role that China has played in helping
    sustain Russia's war in Ukraine, and providing dual-use
    technologies and economic support.
        So, we know China is bolstering Russia's defense industrial
    base with microelectronics, telecommunications equipment, and
    drone technology.
        So, in that context, how should NATO adapt its deterrence
    and defense strategies so they can address the combined
    military and technological threats posed by a Russia-China
    partnership?
        Admiral Montgomery. And you are exactly right, what I am
    saying there is that Ukraine is actually fighting four
    countries right now: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. And
    I would say most of us think North Korea and Iran are the next
    biggest problems. They are not. It is China.
        China is backstopping Russia's economy. They have increased
    their imports and exports more than 30 percent. As you said,
    they provided the microelectronics. They are supporting the Kh-
    101, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles. They are striking
    Ukraine every night.
        We absolutely have to hold China accountable for its
    support to, to Ukraine.
        Mrs. Kim. Is there specific capabilities or partnerships
    that NATO should prioritize to counter those threats?
        Admiral Montgomery. Yes. So, I do believe it is NATO's role
    in an Asia-Pacific context will be very economic in nature. So
    that what we need to do is start working together on how we
    sanction and export control China properly. And we need to get
    the Europeans more engaged in that, and committed as we are.
        Mrs. Kim. I have one more question regarding the NATO and
    Western Balkans. The Western Balkans is a critical region for
    NATO staffers to promote stability and counter external
    influence. Russia has intensified its efforts to undermine NATO
    in EU integration in countries like Serbia, using
    disinformation, economic leverage, and political interference.
        So, what specific strategy should NATO employ to counter
    Russian influence in the Western Baltics--or Balkans? And
    particularly in Serbia, as I mentioned, and where the, you
    know, favorable perceptions of Russia are growing, especially,
    like I said, in Serbia?
        Admiral Montgomery. I think you are exactly right.
    President Putin has supported both Vucic in Serbia and Dodik in
    Republika Srpska. We need to fully support Kosovo in its
    efforts to enter the European Union and NATO.
        But more importantly, we need to ensure the stabilizing
    force, NATO's KFOR force in Kosovo is properly manned and
    equipped to do a what it has to to provide the warning that is
    necessary so that Washington can hold Serbia accountable for
    threats to Kosovo.
        Mrs. Kim. Thank you very much. My time is up. I yield back.
        Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from
    California, Mr. Costa.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        For the purpose of my 5 minutes I want to focus on NATO and
    Ukraine. But let me first remind ourselves of a bit of history.
        When Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th, 2022, there
    was strong bipartisan support that this was about good versus
    evil. Very clear, good versus evil.
        Let me quote from a speech that President Ronald Reagan
    gave in 1983.
        ``To ignore the facts of history and aggressive impulses of
    an evil empire is simply to call the arms race a giant
    misunderstanding, and thereby remove yourself from the struggle
    between right and wrong, and good and evil.'' President Ronald
    Reagan in 1983.
        I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, and members of the
    subcommittee, that this is still about good versus evil, bottom
    line. Okay?
        So, when we look at NATO, and when we look at the United
    States post-World War II, do we not witness that the United
    States and whoever has been President of the United States,
    World War II to today, has been viewed as the indispensable
    leader of the free world, Ambassador Smith?
        Ms. Smith. Absolutely, Representative. The U.S. has led the
    alliance since it was created 76 years ago. It has provided not
    only----
        Mr. Costa. The indispensable leader of the free world.
        Ms. Smith. Yes. Absolutely.
        Mr. Costa. Dr. Gardiner, would you agree?
        Mr. Gardiner. One hundred percent the United States is the
    indispensable leader of the free world, and remains so today.
        Mr. Costa. Rear Admiral Montgomery, what would you say?
        Admiral Montgomery. I would say absolutely. And we should
    keep the command of SACEUR as part of that indispensable
    leadership.
        Mr. Costa. So, we are part of a seminal moment in world
    history today as we look at what has taken place. Because Putin
    has been very clear, although the Soviet Union has imploded he
    still has visions and dreams of restoring the Russian Empire,
    does he not? Would all three of you agree?
        Mr. Gardiner. Yes.
        Admiral Montgomery. Yes.
        Ms. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. Costa. I mean he has been very clear in all of his
    speeches here.
        So, Ambassador Smith, yes or no, do you believe a strong
    NATO alliance is important to counter the rising and aggressive
    forces of China?
        Ms. Smith. Yes, I do. Not to suggest that the NATO alliance
    is going to operate in the Indo-Pacific, but its deepening
    partnerships with Japan, South Korea----
        Mr. Costa. China is very carefully watching what we are
    doing in Ukraine----
        Ms. Smith. Indeed.
        Mr. Costa [continuing]. would all three of you agree?
        Ms. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. Gardiner. Yes.
        Admiral Montgomery. Yes.
        Mr. Gardiner. Yes.
        Mr. Costa. Whether or not we are going to maintain our
    commitment to our allies and to a democratic and free
    Ukraine,----
        Ms. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. Costa [continuing]. the world is watching, would you
    not say?
        Ms. Smith. Absolutely.
        Mr. Costa. So, therefore, this is a seminal moment in
    American and world history with our NATO allies?
        Ms. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. Gardiner. Yes.
        Mr. Costa. Admiral Montgomery, the probable outcome of the
    support, and you have been there, I know, recently, in Ukraine,
    the F-16s and other support to ensure that--and, of course, we
    are all amazed, but we shouldn't be because, once again, I
    remember all the intelligence briefings we received prior to
    Russia's invasion of over-expectations and under-expectations.
        But Ukraine, the Ukrainian brave people are the MacGyvers
    of this, of this new type of warfare. Would you not agree,
    Admiral Montgomery?
        Admiral Montgomery. I do. And their use of the F-16 has
    been exceptional in the few months they have been operating.
        Mr. Costa. And what should we be doing to ensure that those
    aircraft are fully operational and able to achieve their
    capability?
        Admiral Montgomery. We gave them the F-16s, the European
    countries did, without what is called lifecycle maintenance:
    the consumables, the equipment, the training, and the
    maintenance stuff they need. We need to fully provide the
    lifecycle maintenance and we need to provide the right weapons
    systems to be used as a counter-drone.
        Mr. Costa. And our allies, the Danish and the Netherlands
    have provided the aircraft. We are helping to try to train the
    pilots. But we need to do more; is that not correct?
        Admiral Montgomery. That is correct. We need to do the
    supply chain, the logistics. And we can just sell it to them.
    We don't need to give it to them. We can sell it to them, but
    we have to provide that lifecycle maintenance.
        And, sir, I have to emphasize, we need to give them the
    counter-drone rocket systems, the APKWS that you need to fire
    from those systems.
        Mr. Costa. You wrote a column about this last week. There
    are varied types of systems that the aircraft are lacking that
    we should provide. What are they?
        Admiral Montgomery. The rocket system I just mentioned, and
    an active jamming system.
        Mr. Costa. The jamming system is very important to the
    protection of these systems; that is right, isn't it?
        Admiral Montgomery. That is right. We want to make sure
    that the pilots who are trained in the United States and the
    aircraft, of which they have limited numbers right now, as you
    said, the Netherlands, and Denmark, and eventually Norway,
    survive. They are fighting them exceptionally but they could
    use more support from us.
        Mr. Costa. Let me finally indicate, when Secretary Rubio
    testified before the committee here about a week ago they
    talked about maximum, maximum pressure on Iran to prevent them
    from obtaining nuclear weapons. And by the way, I agree with
    that.
        And I understand the Secretary, what are we doing to put
    maximum, maximum pressure on Russia to ensure that they
    understand that we mean business and we are going to stay with
    our allies? What should we be doing?
        Admiral Montgomery. We should be sanctioning the people who
    are helping the shadow fleet evade sanctions. In other words,
    Chinese, Indian, Turkish companies that are taking the fossil
    fuels that are shipped from Russia in their shadow fleet and
    allow them to circumvent the existing sanctions that neither
    the Biden administration nor the Trump administration has
    properly enforced sanctions to allow that to happen.
        Mr. Costa. And if we put maximum, maximum pressure, maybe
    Russia will come to the realization that we mean business?
        Admiral Montgomery. Potentially. He is Vladimir Putin, so I
    won't say yes.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you.
        I have used my time, Mr. Chairman. And I will submit
    further questions for the record.
        Mr. Self. And I recognize the representative from Florida,
    Ms. Luna.
        Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First and foremost, I am going to have to disagree with my
    colleagues' sentiment as Ukraine as our ally. Ukraine is not a
    member of NATO.
        But aside from that, Zelenskyy hasn't held actual elections
    since the war started. So, I don't know what free and fair
    democracy does that.
        But aside from that, if we are looking at the U.S. total
    spending in NATO, it is 3.3 percent of the defense budget,
    which is a lot of money. My question, and I would like to
    actually point out we just saw two senators took a vlogging
    trip to Ukraine yesterday. It was Senator Blumenthal and
    Graham. I guess it was over the weekend.
        But to put simply, their sanctions bill with Graham is
    basically another D.C. classic. Their Sanctioning Russia Act of
    2025, there is a 500 percent tariff, and banking bans at
    Moscow. But where is the accountability for how billions in
    Part A were spent?
        Biden's admin shoveled millions and millions of dollars
    into Ukraine with zero oversight, no audits, no results. Now
    this bill demands 55 million for monitoring, while Section 17
    slaps tariffs on other countries buying Russian oil, which
    China will bypass through third parties.
        Trump's America First polities does not write blank checks,
    it demands verifiable wins. And if Europe is not going to step
    up militarily, why should U.S. taxpayers fund their security
    theater? Sanctions without enforced negotiations are just
    performative politics.
        You know, I was just with the House Democracy Partnership
    Institute. We were actually in Belgium. We met with the
    European Union. We met with the NATO countries. And what I can
    tell you is you have these countries who are not surrounding
    the Ukraine, and they are advocating for war.
        But you have countries like Romania, Russia--countries like
    Moldova that want peace, and thoroughly back President Trump's
    agenda.
        The reason that I bring that up is because I do believe if
    we continue funding NATO in our current capacity we are simply
    making excuses, not forcing them to take a realistic approach
    at peace negotiations.
        My first question would be to Mr. Montgomery. If you could
    just go back and elaborate really quickly on what you had
    stated in regards to oil?
        Admiral Montgomery. Yes. Right now the Russians are able to
    shift their fossil fuels and avoid existing sanctions, which
    both the Biden and Trump administration have in place, by
    finding third parties. They ship them on illegal shadow ships.
    And third parties, and you mentioned China, India, Turkiye, are
    receiving that.
        The way you normally stop that is you then sanction the
    companies receiving that, the ports receiving it, and the banks
    involved in the, in the procurement. And then those companies
    back off.
        And historically we have seen that happen with Iran, with
    North Korea, with others.
        So, all we have to do is enforce the existing laws, the
    existing sanctions, and we will, we will take away Russia's,
    what is funding Russia's military operations.
        Mrs. Luna. Instead of performative politics; correct?
        I mean, I agree with you.
        Admiral Montgomery. Right. Oh, instead of the--Yes.
        Mrs. Luna. Yes.
        Admiral Montgomery. I think we can do that regardless of
    the sanction bill going on in the Senate.
        Mrs. Luna. Cool.
        And aside from that, just with that same perspective, do
    you think that it is a good idea for members of our Senate,
    Members of Congress to go outside of the policy being set forth
    by the White House and the Secretary of State in regards to
    policy with Russia that we are seeing currently?
        Admiral Montgomery. Well, I certainly feel it is fair for
    senators and Congressmen to go on whatever congressional
    delegations they want. I have supported thousands in my career.
    And I, and I have no opinion on when Republicans, you know,
    criticize Democrat administrations or Democrat representative
    criticize Republican administrations.
        And to my military knowledge, that appears to be the normal
    way of doing business.
        Mrs. Luna. Do you think, though, that it is dangerous to
    have people that are advocating for a policy that is pro war
    when they are first and foremost not the ones on the front
    line, and also to receive massive contracts from defense
    contractors--or not massive contracts but massive donations and
    support from defense contractors?
        Admiral Montgomery. I know Senator Graham, and I believe he
    honestly believes----
        Mrs. Luna. This isn't directed at Senator Graham, sir.
        Admiral Montgomery. Oh.
        Mrs. Luna. That seems to be a problem not just in the House
    but also in the Senate, not specific to one member, both
    Democrat and Republican.
        Admiral Montgomery. I, as a retired military officer, I
    would never hold a politician accountable for, you know,
    expressing his or her views.
        Mrs. Luna. Sorry?
        Admiral Montgomery. A politician should be allowed, able to
    express his or her views.
        Mrs. Luna. Oh, no, that, I mean, I understand that, sir. I
    was just asking simply.
        I thank you for your time. And, obviously, not trying to
    attack you on this. I appreciate you being here today.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from Rhode
    Island, Mr. Amo.
        Mr. Amo. Thank you.
        Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
        We know that the United States' leadership in NATO is
    essential to our own national security. We must support our
    European allies as they take meaningful steps to ensure and
    increase their own defense spending and capabilities. And we
    cannot pull away and isolate ourselves as the current
    Republican administration seeks.
        Maintaining a strong leadership role in NATO means standing
    up to the biggest threat facing our European allies: Russia's
    aggression. But Republicans on this very committee remain
    silent as Donald Trump scolds our NATO allies, parrots Putin's
    talking points, and retreats on the global stage.
        As Russian attacks are stepping up, Trump is stepping back.
    He is not lifting a finger to support Ukraine in their fight
    for freedom, sovereignty and security. And Russian aggression
    toward our allies can be seen in their sabotage of essential
    underwater technologies and infrastructure.
        At least 11 undersea cables in the Baltic Sea have been
    damaged since October 2023, including cables disrupting
    essential energy and internet services to our allies in Sweden
    and Finland.
        Ambassador Smith, could you explain how NATO is countering
    attacks against undersea infrastructure?
        And how can the U.S. support this work and protect our own
    underwater infrastructure from this sabotage?
        Ms. Smith. Thank you, Representative, for raising this
    particular issue.
        The clippings of or cutting of undersea cables is
    increasingly a topic of conversation across the NATO alliance.
    And allies have increased their surveillance, particularly in
    the Baltic Sea. They are sharing more intelligence, sharing
    best practices, and putting together a toolkit that will enable
    the alliance to fortify itself to these types of hybrid
    tactics.
        This is an area where U.S. leadership is indispensable. And
    if we continue to work through this particular issue through
    NATO, we will see a stronger collective alliance response to
    these types of incidents.
        Mr. Amo. Thank you.
        And, you know, this is an example where our adversaries,
    especially China, are watching NATO's response to Russia's
    aggression. Our response, our collaboration, our refusal to
    retreat from this task is a signal that I think is incredibly
    important.
        And, you know, this is, you know, emblematic of the
    response that we need to have in--to the increased coordination
    and cooperation between Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran as
    they, you know, of course form a significant threat against
    Ukraine and NATO.
        And, so, China's continued investments in critical
    infrastructure and telecommunications systems in particular
    across Europe raises alarms about this coordination.
        And I would love for you to share a little bit more about
    how NATO can and should counter the combined threat of
    coordination between those actors, Russia, China, North Korea,
    and Iran, especially with the investments from China in
    critical telecommunications systems.
        Ms. Smith. Well, this is actually a remarkable bipartisan
    story. And I guess there are not as many of those these days as
    we would all wish.
        But in the Trump administration's first term they pushed
    the alliance to conduct a China review that put China on the
    map and got allies talking about what China is doing in and
    around Europe.
        The Biden administration grabbed the baton. We were able to
    get China into NATO's strategic concept, deepen our
    partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. And now handed the baton back
    to the second Trump administration.
        My hope is that this administration will continue to run
    down this path to heighten allies' awareness of what China is
    doing in Europe, whether it is economic coercion,
    disinformation, or fueling and helping supply Russia's war in
    Ukraine.
        Mr. Amo. And I think it is so important that you
    highlighted the fact that the sort of current context of the
    Trump administration and its questioning of the NATO
    relationship doesn't have to be. And they have already proven
    that through the types of collaboration and commitment that we
    saw prior, carrying on from an administration whether or not it
    is a Democratic or Republican administration. These are about
    values, American values that we share.
        And the last thing I will touch on, and I may not be able
    to get your answer but I will try to do so in writing. The
    point I want to make here is that it is really essential that
    NATO maintain a unified position against the threat of Russia
    and their new partners.
        I have questions about Turkiye in this moment. And, you
    know, if you could, briefly, how should the United States and
    NATO approach member nations who are maintaining those ties
    with Russia that imperil the strength of the NATO relationship?
        Ms. Smith. Well, Turkiye is an important but complicated
    ally in the alliance. The U.S. needs to work with Turkiye where
    our interests coincide.
        But in cases where we are at odds, we have to approach them
    with honesty and work through our differences, whether it is
    inside the alliance or in our bilateral relationship, or in
    their relationship with Russia.
        I will say on Ukraine in that first year in 2022, Turkiye
    played an important role in trying to bring the parties
    together. We have recently seen renewed efforts to do so,
    welcoming both Ukrainians and Russians back to Turkiye to,
    hopefully, negotiate.
        Mr. Amo. Hopefully, that is a trend line that we see
    continue.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Self. And I recognize the representative from Texas,
    Ms. Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        And to our panelists, thank you so much for being here
    today.
        I want to echo my colleagues and our witnesses' comments
    that NATO's very existence has averted world wars and made the
    United States safer. Let me be clear, it is not a waste of
    resources when we come together as allies to defend one
    another, as implied by some other members of this committee.
        The security and prosperity that we have enjoyed since
    world wars is no accident. Out of the fog of war, the United
    States helped found this 80-year-old alliance that guaranteed
    under Article 5 that should any NATO nation come under attack,
    the other members will consider it as an attack against members
    all, and will take all actions it deems necessary to assist.
        Article 5 has been invoked once in NATO's history, and that
    was on September 12th, 2001, 1 day after Al Qaeda killed almost
    3,000 people here in our homeland.
        In the following years our NATO allies came to our aid and
    1,000 troops died in combat alongside Americans.
        But now we have a President who questions that same
    security assistance we relied on to keep our own nation safe.
    Just a few weeks ago he said in the Oval Office, ``You know,
    the biggest problem I have with NATO, if the United States is
    in trouble and we call them, do you think they are going to
    come and protect us? They're supposed to. I'm not so sure.''
        I find these comments incredibly reckless, and
    irresponsible, and dangerous to our national security in light
    of the one time when NATO's been activated, it was in our
    defense.
        Ambassador Smith, how does this suggestion that NATO allies
    will not defend each other impact our adversaries' perception
    of credible deterrence?
        And does this undermine our own security?
        Ms. Smith. Well, thank you, Representative.
        When the war in Ukraine started, I think both President Xi
    in China and President Putin in Russia made an assumption, and
    that was that the NATO allies would grow weary, that they would
    grow impatient, that they would grow distracted, and they
    wouldn't be able to maintain focus on Ukraine.
        But we have maintained focus on Ukraine. We remain united.
    I am worried that won't continue to be the case. I want to see
    continued U.S. leadership, which is critical to alliance unity.
        And while the Europeans are increasing their defense
    budgets, it makes perfect sense to remain committed to this
    alliance. It serves our interests in addition to the interests
    of our allies.
        So, I firmly believe that the U.S. should maintain its
    commitment to this alliance, and that doing so will send a very
    strong signal not just to Moscow but to China, Iran, North
    Korea, and other countries around the world.
        Ms. Johnson. And it seems to me like the administration is
    sort of doing the hokey-pokey: we are in 1 day, we are out 1
    day, we are in 1 day, and we are turning it all about. And that
    is not the way to have sustained, reliable, persuasive foreign
    policy in my opinion.
        Do you agree?
        Ms. Smith. Yes, Representative.
        I will tell you that the day that the Trump administration
    suddenly, without consultation with any of our allies, flipped
    off and turned off intelligence sharing to Ukraine, and all
    military assistance--it was eventually turned back on--but that
    day sent a chill through our European allies, our friends in
    Canada, who were worried that this now signals a new era where
    at any moment the U.S. can have a sudden shift without any
    close coordination or cooperation with them.
        Ms. Johnson. The President just sent over a rescission bill
    that will defund, remove funding, critical funding for the U.N.
    I am curious as to how this panel feels about the U.S.
    decreasing its financial commitment to the U.N. and what that
    would do to our national security interests.
        Yes?
        Mr. Gardiner. Thank you very much for the question.
        I fully support efforts to reduce funding for the United
    Nations because the United Nations is riddled with corruption
    and inefficiency, and frequently acts against U.S. national
    interests.
        And I think that the Trump presidency is pushing for
    greater accountability from the United Nations. And that is
    absolutely, absolutely right.
        And so----
        Mr. Johnson. Admiral, how do you feel about that?
        Admiral Montgomery. I am uncomfortable with the rescission
    plan with the United Nations, but more, more so with the
    reduction in USAID funding for, particularly I study the cyber
    capability capacity building that we have been doing in Eastern
    Europe and in the Balkans, and I think the cutting of that
    funding, the reduction in that funding will make us, it will
    make it much more difficult for U.S. forces to operate, to move
    in and through these countries as we like to do with our
    forces.
        So, we have to be very careful with these reductions and
    our overseas assistance. If they have a legitimate national
    security value, they should be maintained. And when you
    eliminate 100 percent of everything, I tend to think you really
    didn't do a legitimate review.
        Ms. Johnson. I couldn't agree with you more.
        Thank you all so much for your testimony. I am out of time
    and I yield back.
        Mr. Self. With that, I recognize the representative from
    Illinois, Mr. Schneider.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    allowing me to join this hearing. And to our witnesses, I
    appreciate your insights.
        You all used similar imagery. You talked about NATO as the
    beating heart, the bedrock, the bulwark. That was very
    consistent.
        Ambassador Smith, you also spoke about a trust deficit. And
    I will paraphrase, but many governments are worried that the
    U.S. commitment to NATO is conditional or transactional.
        Are European allies right to worry about the U.S.,
    Ambassador Smith?
        Ms. Smith. Well, I will tell you, having just got back from
    Spain a couple of days ago, and having the opportunity to meet
    with a number of allies across Europe, there is a real concern
    that the United States right now is unpredictable, and that its
    position both on Ukraine and on the NATO alliance is entirely
    unclear. They do not like that unpredictability and worry about
    whether or not U.S. leadership will continue.
        Mr. Schneider. I am going to ask for my time back because I
    want to move on to other things.
        But, Dr. Gardiner, right to worry?
        Mr. Gardiner. If I could respond to that, actually. I have
    met with dozens and dozens of European here at Washington over
    the past few months, and also been to several European capitals
    recently. And the message from our European friends is that
    President Trump is actually applying the right kind of pressure
    on NATO to increase defense spending to do more.
        He is really shaking up the trans-Atlantic alliance in a
    very positive way. And I have not, I have not heard the
    negativity that you are----
        Mr. Schneider. And I have got it covered, so I appreciate
    that.
        Mr. Gardiner [continuing]. that you are referring to.
        Mr. Schneider. Rear Admiral Montgomery?
        Admiral Montgomery. So, I don't think this has been a wise
    maneuver, just like I didn't think it was wise to pull out of
    Afghanistan without informing our NATO allies. I think we have
    about a 5-year streak right now of being too unpredictable and
    too unfocused on the actual rapacious authoritarians staring us
    in the face.
        Mr. Schneider. And if I can pick up from there.
        I remember the images from Bucha: the bodies in the street,
    the hands tied behind backs, the faces of ordinary people, men,
    women, and children massacred in cold blood by Russian troops.
    Russia's goal was not just to seize territory, it was to
    extinguish a nation, to remind those still under its power that
    resistance is fatal, and to warn those who escape that their
    safety was not assured.
        There was no ambiguity. It was terror. It was annihilation.
    And it was specifically staged for the world to see. And the
    world responded.
        NATO reinforced its eastern flank. Our allies rose to the
    moment. And for the time, I would argue, so did we.
        But I think at this moment the United States is drifting.
    Not drifting, we are actually being led away, led away from
    principle toward paralysis. The President has remained silent
    as Russia renews its campaign of drone strikes against
    civilians. He has not condemned the atrocities. He has not
    mobilized support. He has not led.
        And many in Congress, including some of my colleagues who
    are on the other side today, have followed that example. They
    speak, of Ukraine's cause but shrink from its defense. They
    block aid, delay action, and offer platitudes in place of
    policy. Some have mistaken political convenience for principle,
    or they have lost both.
        We are once again at a point of strategic and moral
    clarity. Ukraine is not asking for our troops, it is asking for
    our resolve. NATO is not demanding escalation, it is asking for
    consistency.
        Each day that the United States hesitates, NATO's
    deterrence is tested, and not only in Kyiv, but in Warsaw,
    Tallinn, and beyond. And if Ukraine chooses to pursue NATO
    membership, as we promised in 2008, as Ukraine as part of an
    agreement to relinquish its nuclear weapons, as part of the
    family of nations, there has to be a clear and credible path
    forward for Ukraine, who has made sacrifice, who has bravely
    fought the Russians.
        We need to honor our commitments and admit that door to
    NATO remains open to free nations, not just Ukraine but free
    nations who meet its obligations and share its values.
        So, my question, I will turn to Ambassador Smith again.
    Bucha was a moment of clarity. The President has been silent on
    Bucha, been silent on the new campaign, Russia's new campaign
    of drone strikes against civilians. He told Zelenskyy that he
    had no cards to play in the Oval Office. I can only imagine
    what Zelenskyy was thinking, knowing that there were plenty of
    cards left to play, as we saw this weekend.
        What does the President's silence communicate to our NATO
    allies, and to Moscow in particular?
        Ms. Smith. It has led to uncertainty about whether or not
    the U.S. is clear-eyed here about who is the aggressor and who
    is the victim. The U.S. needs to State repeatedly that Russia
    is the aggressor and Ukraine is the victim.
        We must apply more pressure on Russia to move toward peace,
    but we also have to ensure that the Ukrainians don't have any
    limits on the size of their forces or whether or not they can
    build a future force so that this doesn't happen again.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you. I am over time.
        As has been noted here, NATO came to the United States' aid
    under Article 5 after we were attacked on September 11th. NATO
    has led the way in ensuring that Ukraine is able to defend
    itself against aggression from Russia. There is no dispute.
    There should be no question. We have to be clear that that was
    the case.
        I appreciate the witnesses' testimony. And I yield back.
        Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from Delaware,
    Mr. McBride.
        Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, I request 30 seconds to make a
    unanimous statement.
        Mr. Self. You are recognized, Mr. Keating.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Last hearing you referred to Representative McBride as
    representative, and I can't fathom how you just can't continue
    to do that. In any case, it is obvious to me that
    Representative McBride wants to focus on the job she was
    elected to do.
        So, going forward, every time you do this she will
    demonstrate who she is, and you will demonstrate who you are.
        With that, let us focus back on the hearing.
        Ms. McBride. Thank you, Ranking Member Keating. I am indeed
    here to talk about strengthening our national security by
    bolstering our NATO alliance because democracy is under attack,
    both in the U.S. and around the world.
        NATO, grounded in shared cultural values with our trans-
    Atlantic allies, plays a vital role in defending democracy and
    sustaining the U.S.-led democratic world order that protects
    our freedoms every single day.
        NATO has been a defender of democracy both at home and in
    Europe for over 75 years, fostering both one of the longest
    periods of peace between great powers in human history, and the
    greatest expansion of freedom and individual liberty ever.
        On the global stage, this administration is attacking our
    NATO allies Denmark and Canada, canceling foreign aid without
    notice, and defending Putin's illegal war in Ukraine.
        Most dangerously, this administration is undermining
    Article 5 in explicit ways. But the threat to NATO and to the
    security it has fostered is even more insidious than just that.
        Here at home we are seeing a democratic backsliding and
    dangerous illiberalism take hold. When due process is infringed
    upon and the First Amendment is trampled upon we are not simply
    violating domestic norms and constitutional freedoms, we are
    communicating to Vladimir Putin that we no longer cherish the
    shared values that underpin our commitment to NATO.
        We communicate we aren't willing to defend democracy here
    at home and, in so doing, that we are not willing to defend it
    overseas, that democracy and individual liberty are not
    principles that we will fight for.
        And this is part and parcel of a broader global project
    aimed at dismantling democratic institutions and shifting
    toward totalitarianism.
        NATO is and has been a crucial alliance for our shared
    national security goals and our shared values. And I intend to
    work with this committee, with serious members on this
    committee to ensure that we remain a leader and supporter of
    NATO's mission.
        So, my question for you, Ambassador Smith, as someone who
    has represented the U.S. in Europe, I am curious what long-term
    strategic consequences could arise if the perception takes hold
    globally that the United States is retreating from our
    democratic values, and how could that impact NATO's unity, its
    mission, and its effectiveness?
        Ms. Smith. Well, thank you very much, Representative, for
    that question.
        Look, the NATO alliance is rooted fundamentally in our
    shared values. And our shared values starts and ends with a
    commitment to democracy, to the rule of law, to human rights,
    et cetera.
        And, so, if we have a situation where certain allies are
    starting to question America's fundamental commitment to those
    democratic values, the foundation of the alliance simply won't
    hold. So, the United States needs to not only continue to
    ensure that it leads this alliance as it has done for now 76
    years, but it has to be the beacon on those democratic values.
    Without it, the NATO project, again, simply doesn't work.
        And it would be ultimately a win for China, for Russia, for
    Iran, for North Korea, and others to see the collapse of those
    shared values. So, the U.S. has a key role in maintaining them.
        Ms. McBride. So, I want to build off of that point,
    Ambassador, specifically around the message it sends to China
    and Russia.
        You know, I touched on in my opening comments how a
    receding of democratic norms, and values, and rights here in
    the United States could communicate to Vladimir Putin that we
    are less committed to the values that underpin NATO. So, I
    would love to hear your perspective on how that illiberalism
    here, how that democratic backsliding here could potentially
    embolden Vladimir Putin?
        Ms. Smith. Well, we can't do anything, Representative, to
    signal to Moscow that we are backsliding on any of those core
    values. And we have to ensure that America's commitment to the
    alliance is ironclad.
        It is there, NATO is there to defend our shared values. We
    do not want to give Russia any impression that we are backing
    away from that commitment.
        Ms. McBride. And then, finally, you know, in terms of
    NATO's unity, I would love to hear a little bit more from you,
    Ambassador, about the public attacks by U.S. leaders on
    longstanding NATO allies, and how that is impacting or
    potentially could impact cohesion and mutual trust within NATO?
        Ms. Smith. Well, look, we have been in this alliance for 76
    years, and we argue all the time. I am here to tell you, as the
    U.S. Ambassador I spent each and every week having debates,
    fierce debates, sometimes shouting debates with our closest
    allies. That is the way it goes in the alliance. It is like a
    family. Everyone feels comfortable arguing.
        But what you don't want to do is let those fierce debates
    internally boil over and give leaders around the world,
    autocrats, the feeling that NATO unity is cracking. You have to
    take those arguments head on but work toward unity.
        And what I want to see is this administration re-assuming
    and taking on that leadership role in the alliance, calling out
    Russia for its aggression and indiscriminate attacks on
    civilians inside Ukraine, and putting maximum pressure, not
    just on Iran, but maximum pressure on the Russians.
        Ms. McBride. Thank you.
        I am over time. I yield back.
        Mr. Self. The ranking member has agreed that we will have a
    second round.
        So, I recognize myself for 5 minutes. And I will start out.
    I have got a potpourri of questions here.
        But, Dr. Gardiner, you responded to that last, and I
    thought you wanted to give a response to one of those last
    questions. If you will take a few seconds.
        Mr. Gardiner. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And I would like to respond to the, to the remarks made by
    Representative McBride because I think the, the comments there
    were absolutely ridiculous. And the attack on the United States
    as a nation supposedly backsliding on democracy bears no
    relation whatsoever to, to reality.
        And I am proud to live in the freest nation on earth. And
    the United States fights every day for freedom and democracy
    across the world. And I find it absolutely astonishing that a
    Member of Congress would compare the United States to Putin's
    Russia.
        And the United States today is the beacon of democracy and
    freedom in the world. And we see that on a daily basis. And I
    just want to mention on the record that I find it absolutely
    appalling that a Member of Congress makes astonishing attacks
    on the United States, full of lies, that carries no relation
    whatsoever to reality.
        American leadership is incredibly powerful on the world
    stage right now. And the United States is leading the NATO
    alliance based upon the principles of freedom, and democracy,
    and individual liberty. We are seeing that.
        And we should be proud of that record, instead of trying to
    tear America down, as the left does all the time. We should be
    proud of everything this great nation stands for, and that
    includes at its very heart the freedom and liberty that is the
    foundation of this great nation. Thank you.
        Mr. Self. Thank you.
        And to get back to some of the details, I would like your
    opinion, Dr. Gardiner, of the arrest warrant for Dodik and the
    potential impact on the Western Balkans, and their refusal to
    carry through with that arrest warrant.
        Mr. Gardiner. Yes. Actually, on that particular issue I am
    going to defer to my colleague Mr. Montgomery, who I think has
    a more detailed----
        Mr. Self. Admiral.
        Mr. Gardiner [continuing]. understanding of that particular
    issue. Thank you.
        Admiral Montgomery. I do think it is a--thank you, Nile--I
    will tell you, I am not optimistic that the arrest warrant will
    be executed. I am confident that Dodik is a criminal and should
    be held accountable.
        And I am afraid I think I share your sentiment concerning
    the previous questions, Nile, that the Balkans are a tinderbox,
    and that our inability to hold Vucic and Dodik accountable is
    eventually going to lead to inflammation and a deeper
    requirement for European and, potentially, America, the United
    States, to get involved.
        So, I wish it would be executed properly. I suspect it
    won't, sir.
        Mr. Self. Okay, very good. We had a very short conversation
    about the Suwalki Gap. That is in my mind the second most
    important issue facing NATO.
        So, would you give us a tutorial on the Suwalki Gap and the
    Kaliningrad enclave and what that enclave represents to Russia?
        Admiral Montgomery. Well, as a retired Army officer, I am
    not surprised you bring that up. But I agree with you
    completely, the Suwalki Gap is a narrow throat that Russia
    would like to grab in order to bring itself with, Greater
    Russia with Belarus, in contact with the Kaliningrad Oblast,
    which is the most heavily fortified geographic position in the
    world.
        Despite the war in Ukraine, the Russians have not backed
    off one iota from packing weapons systems into there that hold
    Poland and the Baltic states at risk. The ability to close that
    I think 60 kilometer gap would be very rapid in war. But I
    believe the Russians can do that. And, certainly, with what
    they have learned in Ukraine they will be able to do that.
        So, I share your concern about the Suwalki Gap. This is one
    of those issues where Europe and NATO need to be thinking very
    hard about how you persistently deter Russia from being able to
    do that.
        I do not think you can get the weapons systems there five,
    six, 7 days after the fact. It will be lost by then. And the
    Baltic states and Poland share your concern.
        Mr. Self. And my last point in my last 30 seconds is FMS
    reform. We have a great need to reform FMS. And I will just
    make that point on the record. We have still billions of
    dollars behind in weapons systems that Taiwan has already paid
    for. Saudi Arabia stands in front of Taiwan for the Harpoon
    missiles, having paid for the re-start.
        So, it is something we cannot take our eye off the ball.
    Ambassador, you mentioned the defense industrial base. FMS
    reform I think is vital for the future of everything we have
    been talking about.
        With that, I yield my time. And I recognize Mr. Keating.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        There is a lot of misinformation, I believe, that is going
    around the U.S. and around the world regarding the commitment
    of our NATO allies, our European allies, in fact, the 50
    country allies that all are working to, as one, to defeat
    Russian aggression in Ukraine.
        So, I would like, Ambassador, could you take some time and
    straighten the record out here. I mean, the contribution from
    Europe is extraordinary. And so, if you could take some time
    and correct some of those misconceptions.
        Ms. Smith. Yes. Thank you very much. There are some folks
    out there that believe that the U.S. has been supporting
    Ukraine over these last three-and-a-half years largely in
    isolation. And that is simply not the case. Our European allies
    have given an enormous amount of support to Ukraine. They have
    housed millions of refugees, they have provided critical
    economic and humanitarian support.
        But they have sent weapons. Some countries have sent them
    everything they had. The Baltics, the Poles, a country like
    Romania that sent essentially all of its air defense, these
    contributions have been critical to what Ukraine has been able
    to do to defend its territory against Russian aggression.
        So, I completely appreciate your point. I think it is
    important for folks to understand that this has been an effort
    not just with our European allies but with 50 countries around
    the world.
        Secretary Austin, when he was Secretary of Defense,
    regularly convened 50 countries from around the world,
    including friends in the Indo=Pacific, to each month send more
    critical support to our friends in Ukraine. One of those
    meetings is happening today. And the U.S. Secretary of Defense
    will not be attending the UDCG, the Ukraine Defense Contact
    Group.
        That is a shame in my mind. It is a group that requires
    U.S. leadership at the highest levels. And the United States
    started this group and it needs to continue to lead it.
        Mr. Keating. Yes, the Contact Group is essential. And, in
    fact, it is a way the U.S. is leveraging, you know, their
    assets around the world, too. And so, I think it is critical in
    that regard.
        I also wanted to just touch base. The Russian elections
    that occurred where they voted to have legitimate control over
    areas of Ukraine in violation of every international law that
    you could think of. How would you categorize those elections?
        Ms. Smith. Well, it is a pretty short answer,
    Representative: it was a sham. And we cannot allow this to
    stand. In my mind, we cannot allow Russia to come in and make
    these assumptions and claims that the Zelenskyy administration
    is somehow a Nazi regime, that this territory that they are
    currently occupying belongs to Russia, that they have a right
    to own Crimea. None of this adheres to Ukraine's very clear
    territorial integrity and sovereignty. And we have to continue
    to stand up and push back against those types of Russian
    assertions.
        Mr. Keating. Speaking of elections, in World War II martial
    law declared in the U.K. They did not have elections then.
        Ms. Smith. Correct. Correct.
        Mr. Keating. And it is somewhat similar with----
        Ms. Smith. So, yes.
        Mr. Keating [continuing]. the Ukraine Constitution.
        Ms. Smith. Right. Right now under martial law.
        Mr. Keating. There is martial law.
        Ms. Smith. They are not voting. Yes.
        Mr. Keating. Martial law was called because of the Russian
    aggression.
        Ms. Smith. Because of the war. Correct.
        Mr. Keating. Their constitution would not allow that even
    if they wanted to have that; is that correct?
        Ms. Smith. Indeed.
        Mr. Keating. Admiral Montgomery, I don't think we spent
    enough time talking about Putin and who he really is. You
    mentioned that in some of your remarks. And we are looking at
    this negotiation that is going on which is, you know,
    negotiations are always a good thing. Talking is always a good
    thing.
        But how would you categorize Putin's response to these
    negotiations?
        Admiral Montgomery. The offer in Istanbul last week was an
    insult to President Trump. President Trump has told President
    Putin several times, come to the table with a serious deal. And
    he has told him stop doing the, you know, Vladimir, stop doing
    the bombing.
        I thought there was a potential this time, there would be a
    reasonable response. But, instead, it was, you know, just a
    laundry list of every illegitimate Russian claim to Ukraine,
    and every ridiculous request that they basically neuter
    themselves, demilitarize, and take no western support.
        It was an absolute insult to President Trump, who has given
    President Putin more than enough time to come to the right
    answer.
        Mr. Keating. Great.
        My time is expired. I yield back.
        Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from Nevada,
    Ms. Titus.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        Admiral, the Trump administration was not that one that
    eliminated the Global Engagement Center but, rather, you,
    pointing in this direction, I said it wasn't me, but you meant
    Congress simply allowed it to expire.
        Now, the White House Republicans did indeed refuse to
    include the extension of sunset in the Fiscal Year National
    Defense Authorization Act. And based on some sense to debunk
    conspiracy theories.
        But the Biden administration tried to keep their work going
    by putting this mandate in the State Department's Counter
    Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Office, the
    R/FIMI.
        Now, unfortunately, then on April the 16th Secretary Rubio
    announced the closure of that office as a way to, and I quote,
    ``champion free speech.'' Now, since you asserted that Congress
    failed in its decision to not reauthorize the GEC, do you also
    believe that the Trump administration failed in its decision to
    close the R/FIMI?
        Admiral Montgomery. So, and I know your staff will go do
    more research, and you will read that I have written three
    articles condemning the closure of the Global Engagement
    Center, and President Trumps' closure of this.
        I absolutely believe we need to counter disinformation. The
    closure of the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security's
    disinformation shops was equally reckless by this
    administration.
        So, I absolutely think that we should be looking for
    disinformation. Russia and China are aggressively conducting
    cyber-enabled economic warfare and influence operations
    campaigns against this country.
        But one final thing I will say is the most deleterious,
    worst information operations campaign going on in this country
    is the use of TikTok. TikTok, you in Congress properly banned
    it last year. President Biden signed it into law.
        TikTok is being used by China to change the social
    narrative in our country to tell the 180 million 18 to 35 year
    olds who use it that the United States is not a great country,
    that China, that China's suppression of Uyghurs is Okay, that
    China's suppression of Taiwan is Okay, that the Russian
    invasion of Ukraine is Okay, and that Hamas' terrorist act
    against Israel is Okay.
        TikTok needs to be banned. To me, that is the worst
    disinformation operation. But I would agree with you completely
    that we need a global, something like the Global Engagement
    Center. I have argued for it for about two-and-a-half years
    now.
        I was just pointing out that the actual problem was
    Congress failing to reauthorize it.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. I just wanted the record to clearly
    show who all was responsible, and what the whole context of the
    story was. And if I--if you were answering it the way I hoped
    you would I would take offense that you think my staff has to
    do my research. But you can write you own books.
        But thank you for that answer.
        Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from Illinois,
    Mr. Schneider.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Chairman Self.
        And before I do ask my question, Dr. Gardiner, I have to
    tell you I take great offense at your--respectful people,
    honorable people can disagree on policy. To question Democrats'
    commitment and patriotism is unacceptable.
        I love my country. And I know my colleagues do. I am
    committed to the country like Rear Admiral Montgomery,
    Ambassador Smith, our colleagues here. We take an oath to
    defend the Constitution, and we do that with seriousness and
    integrity.
        So, I take great offense. We live in a great country. We
    are a beacon to the world. I am the father of a Navy veteran.
    Like Admiral Montgomery, he was a surface warfare officer. And
    we can disagree. We don't need to besmirch each other's
    commitment to our country.
        Rear Admiral Montgomery, in your opening remarks you
    stated, and I am going to quote you here, ``I firmly believe
    that NATO can serve as a bulwark that brings trans-Atlantic
    alliance through the challenges posed by a rapacious
    authoritarian State, Russia, and the China-led axis of
    aggressors that supports and enables Russia.'' And I agree on
    that.
        My question for you: is it can, or is it must? Must NATO be
    at that forefront?
        Admiral Montgomery. In my written I said ``can,'' and in my
    oral I said ``must,'' because I believe it is must.
        I mean, look, there is no substitute for us. I agree with
    Nile and his characterization of French President Macron's
    initiatives here. They are going to go nowhere. It needs to be
    us. It needs to be NATO.
        And myself, Chairman Self, others have served with NATO
    over 40, 50 years. We are the bulwark of democracy in Europe.
    And we are the only thing that is strong enough to defeat them
    together.
        Europe has to spend more. We have to spend more. We are
    going to go below 3 percent in real GDP, defense spending in
    GDP, not the numbers that we get from some disarmament agency
    in Scandinavia. We are going to go below 3 percent over the
    next two to 3 years.
        We need to get ours up. They need to get theirs up. It is
    the only way we can defend ourselves.
        Mr. Schneider. And I think it was Ambassador Smith, you
    talked about it, we need to do that in a coordinated way. We
    need to have a strategy. And a strategy follows a vision of the
    role of NATO, what role it plays today but also into the
    future.
        What do you see as the role for NATO looking to the future?
        Ms. Smith. Well, I would like to see Russia--I mean, I
    would like to see the alliance complete that strategy on
    Russia. I think existing in a world where the allies can't
    agree on a Russia strategy doesn't bode well for the future in
    this huge surge of spending.
        But from a more technical perspective, I think NATO can
    help drive co-production. We have heard a couple of great
    examples today.
        I often point to the case of Spain, Romania, Germany, and
    the Netherlands coming together with Raytheon to build the GEM-
    T missiles for the Patriots. Those types of co-production
    efforts are the wave of the future. And NATO can help that
    happen, but not if the alliance is hemorrhaging trust and
    Europeans feel like they want to back away from us.
        So, the U.S. has to recommit. This summit is going to be
    very important in terms of the signals the Trump administration
    is going to send. And it should, in my mind, allow the alliance
    to move forward both with the Russia strategy, and allow it to
    push forward on those joint ventures that I just mentioned.
        Mr. Schneider. I couldn't agree more. You answered,
    actually, my followup question, which is that U.S. role.
        What is the impact of messages coming from the
    administration, the going one way on Monday, and a different
    way on Tuesday, and a complete reversal on Wednesday? What is
    the impact of getting to the strategy and the vision we need to
    achieve?
        Ms. Smith. Let me give you just one example of where we are
    with public attitudes in Europe.
        In Denmark they have created this app on your phone so that
    you can go through the store and find U.S. products so that you
    can avoid them. That is where we are right now.
        Mr. Schneider. I attended a----
        Ms. Smith. In Denmark.
        Mr. Schneider. Yes. I attended a wedding in Canada last
    weekend, week before last, and----
        Ms. Smith. It is not good. It is not good.
        Mr. Schneider [continuing]. we went in to buy a bottle of
    wine. There is no American alcohol in the liquor stores. And we
    are seeing that.
        Rear Admiral Montgomery, let me give you the last word
    here. What is the impact of the inconsistency from the U.S. if
    we are going to achieve the strategy you talked about, if NATO
    must lead the way?
        Admiral Montgomery. As a military planner, I ran our plans
    in U.S. European Command and our operations in the U.S. Pacific
    Command through my career. And the one thing that any military
    planner or operator wants is consistency. We need to have
    consistent, stable resources, operational plans, and direction
    from senior leadership.
        In the end, the President makes the direction, and we need
    to flex to it. But consistency is always a preferred condition.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Self. I thank the witnesses for their valuable
    testimony, the members for their questions.
        The members of the subcommittee may have some additional
    questions for the witnesses. I will ask you to respond to those
    in writing. I will certainly have one.
        Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have 5 days to
    submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the
    record, subject to the length and limitations.
        Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

                                     [all]