Transatlantic Relations ahead of the Washington Summit with NATO Observer Group Cochairs Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Thom Tillis

Listen to Event Audio

United States Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) have served as cochairs of the bipartisan Senate North Atlantic Treaty Organization Observer Group since its reestablishment in 2018. The two senators have been outspoken in their support for the alliance, including NATO’s recent round of enlargement to Sweden and Finland.

Both have also been stalwart in their support of Ukraine. As they wrote to President Joe Biden in April, “We believe Ukraine should be offered a realistic path to NATO membership once all NATO Alliance members agree that Ukraine has met the conditions and requirements for membership.”

Additionally, the senators have underscored the importance of burden sharing, which they reinforced in a letter last month urging Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to increase his country’s defense spending. They have supported the idea, acknowledged at the NATO summit in Vilnius last year, that spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense should be the floor—not the ceiling—for members.

Please join Senior Fellow Peter Rough for a discussion with the senators on NATO, Ukraine, the Black Sea region, and transatlantic relations just weeks before the Washington summit.

Event Transcript

This transcription is automatically generated and edited lightly for accuracy. Please excuse any errors.

Peter Rough:

Good afternoon and welcome to Hudson Institute. My name is Peter Rough. I'm a senior fellow and the director of our center on Europe, and it's my pleasure to welcome two United States Senators to our program from the great state of New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen and from North Carolina, Thom Tillis. Now you might be wondering what brings together a Republican from the south and a Democrat from New England. And the answer is the North Atlantic Treaty organization, at least in this case. Senators Shaheen and Tillis are co-chairs of the wonderfully named SNOG, the Senate NATO Observers Group, which was established in 1997 in anticipation of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joining the alliance. In fact, President Clinton marked just a quarter-century of them in the alliance through a major speech in Prague just this past March. And the SNOG lapsed somewhat in the 2000s, in 2007 in particular, but was reestablished by Senators Tillis and Shaheen in 2018 in the wake of increased Russian aggression, most notably of course Russia's intervention in Crimea in 2014.

Senators Tillis and Shaheen, thanks so much for being here. It's a pleasure to have you at Hudson.

Jeanne Shaheen:

Nice to be with you.

Peter Rough:

So we are here together at an auspicious moment, and that is just weeks ahead of the Washington Summit, which marks 75 years of NATO, but it isn't just going to be a celebratory moment. Looking back, there's lots of work to be done for the present and going forward.

And so perhaps, Senator Shaheen, to begin with you. Secretary General Stoltenberg was just in town making the final preparations for the NATO summit. I saw in his meeting with Secretary Blinken that he's also meeting with the SNOG members in the Senate. He headed up to Ottawa for a meeting with Prime Minister Trudeau, he's back in town today. How do you think we're faring in the run-up to the Washington Summit? How prepared is the alliance and positioned for this rather important meeting?

Jeanne Shaheen:

Well, I think the war in Ukraine really forced NATO to relook at what it needs to do in order to continue to be the greatest defensive military alliance in history. And in our meeting with Secretary General Stoltenberg, he talked about three goals for the 75th summit. First was the deterrence and defense goal and pointed out that now 23 of the 32 NATO members have reached their 2 percent of GDP investment in military spending, which is critical as we think about the threat that we're facing from Vladimir Putin and Russia, but also from China and other adversaries. He also talked about the importance of Ukraine and recommitting all NATO members to support of Ukraine in this unprovoked war against Russia. And then also talked about the importance of continuing to bring in the Indo-Pacific countries, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Australia, who have been very supportive and provide another line of defense against China in the Indo-Pacific.

So I think those are three goals. I would add one to that and that is to fully implement the Women Peace and Security agenda, which the US has been working on since 2017, and we were the first country to legislatively pass that agenda. And it's very important to ensure that women are at the table in conflict areas and in decision-making.

Peter Rough:

Which was also featured prominently in a letter that you and senator at Tillis spearheaded to President Biden just a few months ago.

Senator Tillis, what secrets can you reveal from your conversations with Secretary General Stoltenberg just amongst us, the three of us here sir?

Thom Tillis:

Well, I can post a recording if you want me to. Kidding. Look, first off, I want to thank Jeanne because it was in 2018 that Jeanne had the vision to approach me to talk about reestablishing the Senate NATO Observer group that had been dormant, as you said, for a while. And she had the vision with her focus on Europe to know that it was probably the right time to start it. So I'm honored to be a part of the leadership with Jeanne and I think it's been very, very helpful.

Secretary Stoltenberg made it very clear that he's excited about the 75th anniversary being here and our being there in Washington D.C. I'm here in Charlotte this morning he was excited about the message of 23 members that are at 2 percent. What I wanted to talk about coming out of this summit, if you remember back during the Madrid Summit we had the strategic concept where China was recognized for the first time in a substantial way. Our NATO partners and allies recognize that they're an emerging threat. I hope that we come out of this conference not only just reaffirming this family that we have that sometimes disagrees with itself, but is committed to defending should any NATO ally be threatened.

But looking ahead, I think we have to start thinking about NATO in a global context. We can no longer think about NATO just being an entity that deals with threats coming from Europe. And I believe that Secretary Stoltenberg has made that very clear. He is also made it clear that we want to close the gap. We are now down to single-digit members who need to make their 2 percent margin. That is a huge milestone, but they all have to get on board. And I like the fact that he went to Canada because I suspect that he conveyed the message that our friends to the north need to get their act together and pay their fair share.

Putin has done horrible things in Ukraine. But if there's one thing positive that's coming out of this experience is that NATO is awakened and recognized that we failed a stress test. That the NATO alliance is struggling to resupply Ukraine. Imagine if that had been a NATO ally, we would be struggling right now to prosecute a defense against the aggressive acts of Vladimir Putin. So I believe that Secretary Stoltenberg is going to continue to bring that message.

And I should finally stop by saying thank you Secretary Stoltenberg for your decade of support to NATO. You have done an extraordinary job in some of the most trying times in modern history.

Peter Rough:

I almost think-

Jeanne Shaheen:

I would echo that actually. And one of the things that Thom and I are working on is to try and award the Congressional Gold Medal to Secretary General Stoltenberg for his, really, amazing ability to keep the NATO alliance together and to make it stronger.

And thank you, Thom for your nice comments. One of the great things about the Senate NATO Observer Group is that it is a bipartisan partnership. Thom and I are working closely together on everything NATO and we have bipartisan support in the Senate and that's what makes it work.

Peter Rough:

Well, we're lucky to have, I think, at the top of NATO, pretty formidable leadership on the civilian side, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, and I suspect we're close to announcing his successor in the coming days, weeks, perhaps at the summit. And on the military side, think SACEUR General Cavoli is really an exceptional military officer and we're lucky to have him there as well.

As my own editorial comment, since Vilnius or Madrid was raised, I almost think of these as a three-part series. The first being at Madrid's Summit where we passed the new strategic concept doing away with the 2010 vision of Russia as a partner and clearly articulating it as a threat. Vilnius then was about in 2023, adapting a new family of plans. And I think Washington has to be about that strategic vision and then those plans being resourced. So are we meeting our implementation and capabilities targets that are necessary to make the alliance what it needs to be?

And part of the reason I think, Senator Tillis, I'll begin with you this time, why NATO does have that time or has had that time to be able to catch up is because of the tenacity of the Ukrainians and their enormous will to fight to check the Russians so that NATO has had time to gather its wits and build up its capabilities. Ukraine clearly would like to be a member of the alliance and to quote a letter that you and Senator Shaheen spearheaded to the president in April, "We believe Ukraine should be offered a realistic path to NATO membership once all NATO alliance members agree that Ukraine has met the conditions and requirements for membership. "

So despite all of the various components of the summit, I suspect this will be really smack dab in the middle of it. It'll be the topic that most of the media focuses on most concretely and narrows in on. How do you think we're doing in that conversation with the Ukrainians or offering them that realistic pathway to membership?

Thom Tillis:

Well, I'm glad you raised the point of why we're here because we are only here because of the courage, the commitment, the tenacity and the sacrifice of the Ukrainian people. Against all odds, we have to all remember that even public reporting and classified reporting at the time was that if Russia took the massive troops that they had at the border, that they were going to have air superiority within a matter of a couple of days and they were going to control whatever ground they wanted to in Ukraine within a couple of weeks. Ukraine did not have anything except the will to be free to actually withstand that outcome. And now we're trying to resupply. So thanks to President Zelensky, thanks to the leadership, the people who have given their blood and treasure at home to really get us to this point.

Now, I think that we clearly want to any freedom-loving nation that wants to join NATO, we want to provide a path and I think that Ukraine through their commitment since they were invaded, they deserve a look. But we should not get so obsessed with their admission to NATO to forget that we have to be successful in this war. That we need to make it very clear that they need to continue to do the work that they are doing in their parliamentary body for reforms that need to be in place. All of those sorts of things, and God bless them for doing it in the middle of the war. If you go back and take a look at their legislative agendas since February two years ago, they're continuing to actually reform, address the issues that would be requirements to be considered for EU and NATO membership. So continue doing that.

I want the NATO summit to be about our commitment to considering that, but the NATO summit should be all about Putin's failure and Ukraine's success and the current situation because clearly we will have to get through this conflict before we would be able to have admission, and I'm guessing there will be some number of years to actually get things right, defense cooperation agreements, those sort of things, certainty that Ukraine is in a better position and the intervening time is critically important.

But I for one, the reason we put the letter together was to make it very clear the Ukrainian people have demonstrated incredible courage, skills, adaptability. And for that reason, I believe we will be welcoming them to NATO at some point in the future.

Peter Rough:

And we can be sure that Russians will be counter-programming the summit in one way or another to try to spoil this moment in D.C. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Senator Shaheen, do you think the bilateral security agreement that the president announced with Ukraine at the G7 constitutes that bridge to membership? Is that enough of a deliverable as it were on the membership question for Ukraine heading into the Washington summit?

Jeanne Shaheen:

Well, I think it's one of the pieces along the way. They're obviously looking at negotiating other bilateral security agreements with other members of NATO as well. I think anything we can do to try and reassure not just Ukraine but our other allies and point out to our adversaries that we're going to be there to support Ukraine in this war is really important. And that's part of what that bilateral security agreement is all about.

Peter Rough:

Well, you both have already raised the Indo-Pacific. I noticed it was in the press conference that Secretary Stoltenberg did with Secretary Blinken just the other day, emphasizing the IP4, New Zealand, Australia, Korea and Japan, all four are invited as partner states to the Washington summit. To stay on the letter which you both wrote, Senator Shaheen, you talked about the importance of "concrete deliverables " for the IP4 states or the Indo-Pacific at least at the summit. They participated in Madrid, at Vilnius, now they'll be back at Washington. Perhaps to keep the justification alive for them being invited and present, what do you envision these concrete deliverables potentially looking like?

Jeanne Shaheen:

I was just in the Indo-Pacific the end of March with a group members of the Senate and we visited the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea and Japan. And one of the things that struck me on that trip was how closely our allies in the Indo-Pacific are watching what happens in Ukraine because they understand that it's not just our allies that are concerned about that war. It's not just Europe that's concerned about it, but Xi in China and our adversaries are also watching. And Vladimir Putin thinks he can wait us out, he thinks that he can form an alliance, as we saw, with North Korea this week that supports him in his fight in Ukraine, and we've seen China continue to be supportive. So it's very important for us to recognize the connection between what happens in Ukraine and what happens as we look forward in the Indo-Pacific with our adversaries who are watching very closely.

And so I think one of the deliverables for the Indo-Pacific is to continue to see the support that's going to be there for Ukraine because that makes their case against China in the South China Sea, in territorial waters in the Indo-Pacific.

Peter Rough:

Senator Tillis, same question to you.

Thom Tillis:

Yeah. Well, Putin's visit was a member of Congress, I think about a month or so ago who was talking about that Putin is only in Ukraine because he is worried about future NATO aggression. Well, to that member of Congress, I would say you may want to go back and focus a little bit on what's really happening here. If Putin's only concerned about the security of sovereign Russian territory, why in the hell is he striking an agreement with North Korea? It seems to me that North Korea, China are desperately wanting success in Ukraine so that that alliance can then create havoc in the Indo-Pacific region.

The IP4 understands that. Other nations in the region understand that. The American people and members of Congress need to understand that, that we are playing a chess game with three maligned actors. And arguably you could throw Iran in there who would love nothing more than to see NATO fray in our relationships as a result of failure in Ukraine and then run up the score through Moldova and other parts of Europe and European sector, and then do what they can do to Taiwan and create havoc in the Indo-Pacific.

This is not hysterical talk. This is reality substantiated by moves that these countries are making. So we need to make it very clear. And the IP4, it's been great to have them there since Madrid. I want an IP6 and an IP10 because I think it's critically important. And that's back to my opening comments. We are a global alliance with regional priorities. We need to understand that that's where we are today and we need to build on that. IP4, I know that they're not... they're in the NATO alliance, but we have to understand that the threat to democracy is a global threat, and we have to come together as a family of democratic nations to defend against it.

Peter Rough:

Well, to your point, I mean Iranian drones are regularly attacking the Eastern flank of NATO essentially in Ukraine. And Iran I think has proven hugely important in facilitating Russia's attack on Ukrainian air defenses, attempting to exhaust them, destroying Ukrainian infrastructure, attacking soldiers on the frontline. That is not to be underestimated from DPRK artillery to Iranian drones to China's defense industrial base, it really seems like there is an outright alliance forming in Eurasia of anti-American revisionist powers that are trying to destroy our alliance network. Is that putting it too starkly?

Thom Tillis:

These countries want to do to the world what they've done to their people. Let's always make sure we have these conversations. It's not about the Chinese people, it's not about the Russian people, it's not about the North Korean people, it's about their leaderships who are hell-bent on destroying democracy and destroying the lives of our populations the way that they have their own.

Jeanne Shaheen:

Absolutely. And what we're seeing now is that Vladimir Putin went from North Korea to Vietnam because he's trying to build out that group of adversaries that he's put together to support him in Ukraine. I was really pleased when we were in Vietnam in March to see how positive the Vietnamese leadership was about the partnership with the United States. They have strategic coordinated partnership with the US that they were very proud of and talked about.

So make no mistake, as Thom says, we're in this fight around the world for those countries who want to see a control over their own destinies, who want to see their people free, who want free economies, who want to be able to travel in territorial waters without being deterred, without having China block them. So we've got to continue this fight globally.

Peter Rough:

And I think the focus sometimes is lost on the two-way trade and support that takes place between these actors. So there's a lot of focus on the mass amounts, the millions of 152, 155 millimeter artillery shells that North Korea is sending the Russians. But what are the North Koreans getting in return? Those are not free services they're offering and from upgrading potential reentry vehicles to other systems that could be of concern to Seoul and the United States, offensive systems potentially even, I think we have to be aware of that. The same applies to Iran, of course, which would like to have upgraded some of its own systems. And I'm sure that rings alarm bells in Jerusalem as Iran marches towards a nuclear weapon.

But to guard against all of these actors who want to do us harm, we have to have our own capabilities in order. And both of you have already referenced the importance of burden sharing and the report issued this week by NATO that 23 of the 32 allies have now hit the 2 percent mark of GDP. You two have been on this case for some time, and while we're in the business of quoting letters this morning, I'll quote another one that you sent to Prime Minister Trudeau in which you wrote, "We are concerned and profoundly disappointed that Canada's most recent projection indicate that it will not reach its 2 percent commitment this decade. " That letter was co-signed by quite a few members of the Senate, I saw. And I have to confess in my own conversations with officials from NATO, the Canadians do seem to be the one country, maybe saying obstreperous is characterizing it too strongly, but who do not have plans to hit the 2percent mark.

Did you get a response from Ottawa? How do you think we're doing on burden sharing writ large? Senator Tillis, I'll start with you since you have a wonderful grin on your face.

Thom Tillis:

Well, I was kind of laughing since Jeanne's a neighbor I guess it's a little bit more awkward. No, in all seriousness I am personally offended by the concept that in the midst of this conflict in Ukraine, that the leadership of Canada think that it's okay to go another decade before they may pursue a 2 percent threshold. Canada is a leading democratic nation. They are our neighbor. Our history is intrinsically linked. When I'm going to other countries and asking them to do their fair share, you know what comes up more often than not? What about your neighbor to the north? Canada needs to lead by example. The Canadian people need to understand that the extent to which Canada falls short, they are exposing their population to additional threats. This is about our collective ability to defend Canada. So by knowingly failing to meet the 2 percent goal, they think someone else is going to pick up their slack.

Look, I tell everybody, I consider NATO like I consider my family. I've got five brothers and sisters. We always have an argument. I've got one sister who would probably not vote for me if she lived in North Carolina, but my sister knows that if she gets into trouble I'm going to be there. Canada knows that too. But Canada needs to understand we've got other people in this family, other nations in this family that will benefit and our alliance will benefit if they will go to the Canadian people and understand why it's so critically important for a nation of the stature of Canada to lead by example. Other than that, I have no opinion.

Jeanne Shaheen:

It's also distressing that Canada doesn't even have a plan in place to get to the 2 percent. Last week we celebrated the 80th anniversary of the landing at Normandy on D-Day, and I got a chance to go to that. It was so moving to see those World War II veterans who had risked everything on the beaches of Omaha and Utah in Normandy to fight for democracy who understood what was at stake, and Canada was a partner in that. And Prime Minister Trudeau was there for that celebration. It was such a reminder, an emotional reminder of just how important it is that we have an alliance that the NATO came out of World War II and the fight against the Nazis. And the fact that Canada now is not picking up their fair share is disappointing for a country that has been committed to democracy for such a long time.

Thom Tillis:

Well, and just on a finer point, because Jeanne and I, I have no doubt, Jeanne and I will be working as hard as we can to secure the next tranche of funding to support the Ukraine effort. And I will guarantee you that when we have those discussions going forward, I believe that we will ultimately be successful there will be people in Congress who are saying, "I hear you saying you want us to allocate more money, but what about Canada? " Now, Canada may be making it a priority to support the Ukrainian effort, but that's a short-term objective. The long-term objective is to strengthen the alliance and, again, make our job easier to sustain Ukraine and sustain American support for the NATO alliance by just getting these distractions off the table.

Peter Rough:

Well, and Senator Shaheen, as you mentioned, D-Day. I just plug that the two of you put out a very nice op-ed on MSN, which all of our viewers can look at online connecting the battles raging in the east of the continent today to those landings on the west of the continent in Normandy back in 1944. So I would urge you all to look at that.

On the point of burden sharing I would just add financial pressures are obviously growing on the alliance. Just yesterday, the European Commission issued formal warnings for deficit debt overruns against nine of its member states, including, for example, the Belgians who are, along with Canada, laggards under the 2 percent. The Italians were also on that list, as well as others like France who do meet the 2 percent threshold. I also worry that, for example, the Germans having emptied out a special fund to reach 2 percent, they do not want to come to Washington and embarrass President Biden in his grand moment here, 75 years of NATO. But once that fund is run dry to meet the 2 percent in coming years, are they going to stay on that trajectory? So for now, I would say the trajectory is good, but the levels probably aren't adequate yet. Which is why I thought you put it very nicely in your letter to President Biden, that 2 percent should be the floor, not the ceiling for defense spending. But let me-

Jeanne Shaheen:

It was really reaffirmed, Peter, in Vilnius that that should be the floor and not the ceiling. And I think it's really important for us also recognize those countries who are spending over that 2 percent. So we have places like Poland and Estonia, Baltic States who are spending more than the 2 percent who recognize very directly the threat from Russia and who have, in my conversations with leaders in many of those countries, they have been very clear. They think of Putin as successful in Ukraine, he's coming for them, he's coming for the Baltic States, he's coming for Poland, Romania. So they all understand what's at stake.

Peter Rough:

Yeah, and I would just say, on paper the military balance between Russia and NATO looks like it's swings dramatically in our favor. But in practice, a lot of our assets aren't that close to Russia. We basically have two heavy armies, Poland and Turkey on the near sort of Russian abroad. But a lot of our other heavy forces, including American forces that count into the NATO military balance are in the Indo-Pacific, for example, or in CONUS in the United States. So it really is important that, and I think everyone recognizes this 2.5 percent is probably where we need to be, if not 3 percent or more for some of these NATO partners in particular, a lot of our frontline states, but the bigger economies in Europe.

But Senator Shaheen, you just said, Romania. And I should say as a think tanker here in Washington, the Romanians love you very much, and they're very grateful that you helped pioneer this requirement for a Black Sea strategy. Recently, I think you worked on that with Senator Romney, yet again, a bipartisan effort on your behalf. The Romanian foreign minister will be here tomorrow for an event. What can I tell her about this Black Sea strategy that you and Senator Romney have urged the State Department to put together?

Jeanne Shaheen:

Well, the Black Sea, as we have seen in this war in Ukraine, is a very important part of the world. And I think we kind of took it for granted until the war in Ukraine, and we saw when Putin cut off the grain supplies from Ukraine affected the global food supply, just how important the Black Sea is. And so that legislation that Senator Romney and I worked on is all about coming up with a strategy to better support the countries in the Black Sea region. And a number of them are democracies, aspiring democracies, and we have some countries like Georgia that have been aspiring democracies where the people of Georgia are looking west, they want to join the EU, they want to become members of NATO. And yet we've got a leadership in Georgia that has been more and more trending towards autocracy, towards partnering with Russia, which is really hard for me to understand given that Russia occupies 20 percent of their territory.

But so, that's why it's important for us to have a strategy that recognizes the importance of that region and supports those countries in the region as they're looking towards their futures, hopefully most of them are going to be looking west towards the EU towards NATO.

Peter Rough:

Well, it seems, Senator Shaheen, in the case of Georgia, the population is overtly pro-American.

Jeanne Shaheen:

Absolutely.

Peter Rough:

Leaderships taking a slightly different tack. Do you think, are we handling this well as a United States government? What should our approach on Georgia be?

Jeanne Shaheen:

Well, I have legislation that again is bipartisan with the chair and ranking member of both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Appropriations Committee that deals with funding our foreign policy. And what we would do is put in place sanctions on those individuals who have been involved with the Foreign Agents law, which is a law that is basically really modeled on what Russia has done. And as we've talked to NGOs in Georgia, our own National Democratic Institute and IRI Republican Institute who have done such good work in Georgia, they tell us that they're not going to be able to operate there under this law. So it would put in place sanctions for those people who have been involved in doing that law, that would restrict travel, travel for the leadership. We want to make it clear to the current leaders of the government there Georgia Dream that there are consequences for what they're doing.

We've had really good relationships between our military and the military in Georgia really since they became independent. And we want to make it clear that what's happening now in Georgia's having an impact on those mil-to-mil relationships as well. So the legislation has been introduced as a standalone, but it also got adopted on the defense bill that just passed out of the Armed Services Committee. So we are hopeful that that's going to send a very strong message to the leadership in Georgia that there are consequences for what they're doing. It's going to have an impact on the aid that they receive from the United States and the relationships in ways that is not going to be to the benefit of the leadership, especially when their population overwhelmingly wants to look West, wants to be part of the EU, looks at NATO and is very positive toward the United States.

Peter Rough:

Senator Tillis, you've said a few times that we should take a global perspective from the Washington summit, and it seems like we do have one global problem, which I'd like to have you address, and that is the issue of hybrid warfare or hybrid attacks on the US and its partners. There are images coming to us from the South China Sea where Chinese Coast Guard or Chinese vessels are ramming and harassing Filipino resupply missions. And in Europe, I would say that as Vladimir Putin's conventional systems have been beat up and in large part destroyed in Ukraine, despite dramatic reconstitution, he seems to be go to the top end of the escalatory ladder, so nuclear saber-rattling and then on the lower end execute a lot of hybrid attacks against some of our partners and allies.

I happened to be in Prague a few weeks ago during the informal foreign ministerial, and a lot of the foreign ministers I think went off script and talked about this at length, whether it be arson attacks across the alliance, cutting of critical infrastructure cables, explosions, assassinations, removing of buoys between Estonia and Russia just to name one example, GPS jamming, et cetera. How should we deal with this hybrid style of aggression as an alliance when Vladimir Putin seemingly orders these sorts of moves against us?

Thom Tillis:

Well, I think it's why I was saying that we have to think in terms of being a global mutual defense organization with different regional priorities. I mean, I don't think you mentioned the space domain, but let's not forget what Russia has suggested. When Russia talks about the space domain, all of their malign activities have global implications. So if you add that to it and you add the hybrid warfare and the cyber domain and then some of these almost guerrilla war tactics that they're putting into place, the threats are global, they have to be taken seriously, and there has to be a coordinated global response to freedom-loving nations, starting with the NATO allies, the IP4, but every other one.

That's why it's difficult for me to understand that any member of Congress. I'll decide to pick on Congress, since I've picked on a couple of allies. It's difficult for me to understand why anybody thinks that the threat to China is somehow contained in the INDOPACOM area of responsibility. China is thinking globally. China is acting globally. Russia is acting globally. They have created malign relationships across the globe, including in this hemisphere. And so we have to get smart. Number one, we have to demonstrate that we know what they're doing, and number two, we have to build a capability that makes them clearly understand there would be a consequence. Right now, I believe that they think that they can move in certain areas, implement certain tactics, and more or less get a pass. We have to be thinking ahead of those threats and making sure that they understand there can be a consequence no matter how they try to prosecute a war either through conventional traditional means or hybrid means.

Peter Rough:

Maybe I could just, Senator Shaheen, pick up one element of that and extend the question to you. In China's support for Russia, which the administration has gone very public with in dramatic ways in recent weeks and months, I keep hearing the talking point that 90 percent of Russia's microelectronics and 70 percent of its machine tool come from the People's Republic of China. It seems as though the administration would really like the Europeans to push back on the Chinese on this front because they believe Europe has levers over China owing to the important Sino-European economic relationship.

And in those conversations, the sense I get is that Europeans are more than willing to go to Beijing and raise this issue of Chinese support for Russia, but then they quickly move on to the next sort of bilateral issue in their relationship and then to the next file that need to address and so on and so forth. Whereas I think the approach that maybe is necessary is that the Europeans go to the Chinese and say, your support for Russia is sowing the seeds for the next major war in Europe. They need to put this at the centerpiece of their relationship with China and really let them know that these so-called dual use items that are empowering Russia to rebuild its war machine much quicker than we anticipated is going to be a major problem for them.

Do you have any sense that that can happen and that we in your conversation with the Europeans are on our way there?

Jeanne Shaheen:

I think the leadership in Europe is more and more understanding the threat from China. I think the public in Europe is not there yet. And so we really need an education campaign. We need to continue to raise these issues with China, but the leadership in Europe needs to raise it with their own publics as well to be able to talk about the threat that China poses. And as you point out, it's not just a military threat, it's an economic threat, diplomatic. China's Belt and Road Initiative has allowed them to invest in countries all over the world as well as in Europe.

I remember a number of years ago talking to the then prime minister of Greece who was talking about one of their ports in Greece and about the Chinese investment in the port saying, "We came to the United States, you said you couldn't help us. We needed to get this done, and the Chinese were there with their money." So, it's something that we've got to address across all sectors, not just military. Our soft power is really critical, our diplomatic power. When we've got dozens of ambassadors who are being held up in Congress because the effort of certain senators is to keep anything from happening in the administration, that has an impact on our national security and our whole country. So we've got to look at how we can engage not just militarily, but also diplomatically, economically.

I think one of the things that happened in the previous administration was better awareness of what the tariffs and the trade imbalance that China was engaged in was having on the United States, and we need to recognize that. Also as you were talking about the threat in space, and I couldn't agree more with Thom and talking about the space race that's now not about putting people up in space, but it's about whether space is going to be militarized in a way that's going to affect our national security.

But it's also, we talk about cyber, but cyber is also about disinformation. And one of the biggest threats we have as we look at hybrid warfare is the disinformation that is being spewed by Russia and China and our other adversaries. And it's particularly challenging for us in the United States because of our First Amendment need to allow for free speech and to allow for information. And the Russians, the Chinese are taking advantage of that in ways that really manipulate public opinion, not just here in the United States, but in Europe and in other democracies. And we haven't, I think, adequately figured out how to respond to that. We have in the State Department something called the Global Engagement Center that's supposed to be there to try and correct misinformation and let countries know what the messages are that are coming out of the United States. But we have not effectively yet been able to respond to that disinformation.

I remember listening to General Breedlove when he was the commander in Europe talking about the downing by Russia of, as you remember, the KLM airliner in Ukraine. And Ukraine was blamed for it initially, and yet Russia did it. It took us almost two years to get the factual information to be able to say that it was definitively Russia that downed that airline. And General Breedlove said, "As long as it takes us that long to respond to misinformation, we are losing that war. " And it's one of the things that we've got to get better at.

Peter Rough:

And just to plug our own programming, we just had Phil Breedlove along with Generals Clark, Scaparrotti. Scaparrotti, Senator Tillis, is a North Carolina resident, I believe.

Thom Tillis:

Oh, I know.

Peter Rough:

And General Walters for an event on SACEURs discussing the past president and future of warfare. In closing, let me ask a question that's adjacent to or related to what you just spoke about, Senator Tillis, public education missions, misinformation, et cetera. And that is just what you hear from your constituents when you're out and about in North Carolina and New Hampshire on foreign policy. Now, as a foreign policy specialist who runs a center on Europe and Washington DC I think it's very important, but I'm well aware that in my home state of Iowa, for example, there are other issues that tend to be more important to voters and to citizens.

But tell us, and Senator Tillis, I'll begin with you, does it come up in town halls? Is it all sort of inflation, immigration, those issues? Or does foreign affairs register with voters? And if so, what kind of reaction do you get when you talk about your support for Ukraine and NATO?

Thom Tillis:

It does come up, and I think probably this is an area where Jeanne and I have bipartisan challenges to kind of cut through some of the false narratives. I'll recount, every once in a while I'll go to the front office and I answer phones. I don't identify who I am. If it's particularly controversial day, and this happened to be when Ukraine funding came up, I make my chief, my legislative directors, everybody else just go in and be staff, listen to what they're saying. The difference is when I talk, I don't have to just say thank you, we'll let the senator know. I get to get into a conversation. I don't tell the constituents who I am, but I am honest about the interactions I have with my staff so that they get a more informed response than they will from a staff.

So I had this gentleman call me from North Carolina. I answered, "Senator Tillis's office. " And he said, "You need to tell Senator Tillis that he needs to stop worrying about Ukraine and start worrying about what's going on at the border. That's the most important thing. " And I said, "Well, sir, Senator Tillis believes that the leader of the free world has to do both. Clearly, our responsibility at the end of the day is to maintain the safety and security of our nation, but the safety and security of our nation is intrinsically linked with the safety and security of nations that we've had a 75-year partnership with, sir. So Senator Tillis believes that we can do both. And the reason he believes that is because we have done both. They are not mutually exclusive goals. They are both important priorities, and we have to behave in a way that shows that we're fulfilling our responsibility as the leader of the free world, sir. So thank you for your input. I will make sure that Senator Tillis understands your concerns. "

That is the way that we've got to go to the American people. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not supporting Ukraine simply for supporting Ukraine's sake because I see an endgame where the consequences could be dramatic for the American people and the world. And that's worth making it a dual priority of the economic and the fiscal safety and security of the United States and the safety and security of our partners and allies in NATO and around the world they have to go together. They are intrinsically linked. And you won't achieve long-term one without ensuring that you achieve the other.

Peter Rough:

And I would just add to that, sir, 48 states, I think it is, my colleague, Luke Coffey, likes to cite the statistic trade more with Europe than they do with China. There are trillions of dollars of foreign direct investment from Europe into the US. It's by far the most dense of trading and investment block in the world. And to fund our domestic priorities, you want to see that money go away quickly, then allow the European order to collapse because we'll be poor as a result. But go ahead, sir.

Thom Tillis:

Yeah, I'm not sure where we are in the program, but it also is very important to point out that we've got to go back to bipartisan failure and Democrat and Republican administrations on trade. Can you imagine the different strategic posture we would have right now if TPP had been in place for the last eight years, the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Can you imagine how that would've been an extraordinarily powerful tool against the Belt and Road Initiative and lay the groundwork for answering some, or addressing some of the challenges that nations have in trying to get capital? They go to China after they can't find someone in the western world to partner with TTIP in Europe. So I hope this decade is also a decade of understanding the strategic non-lethal value of enhancing our trade relationships and providing more resiliency and more options that do not find their way in China. And then hopefully as a result, get China to compete economically, not militarily going forward.

Peter Rough:

Senator Shaheen?

Jeanne Shaheen:

Well, yes, I would echo that. In the last year, I've been in four countries in Latin America, four countries in the Indo-Pacific, and plus multiple countries in Europe. And every country I've been in, whether it was the Balkans, Argentina, the Philippines, every single country said, we want more trade with the United States. We want a trade partnership. My small state of New Hampshire does $3 billion in trade with Europe. So what happens in Europe is a big deal for our companies in New Hampshire.

And I was at a defense company in New Hampshire a couple of weeks ago, and I was meeting with employees and somebody asked me about why are we spending money in Ukraine when we have needs at home? And so I talked first about the fact that a lot of the money that we're spending in Ukraine is going to New Hampshire businesses, to US businesses, to our defense industrial base. One of the things that we saw from the Ukraine war was it was a wake-up call that we've got to get our defenses and our manufacturing defenses in order. And so we are getting funding in the US from the supplemental package in Ukraine. About 25 billion is going to US firms, and that's creating good jobs and keeping people working.

But the other thing we talked about was the threat from Putin in Europe writ large, the threat to NATO. And I talked about what I've heard from leaders in the Baltic States in Poland and other parts of Europe who believe very strongly that if Vladimir Putin is not defeated in Ukraine, he's coming for them, as I said earlier. And as I said to the gentleman who raised the question, I said, "I have four grandsons. I don't want to see my grandsons sent off to fight in Europe because we didn't take care of the threat from Russia now. " Right now the courageous Ukrainians are fighting that war. I want to support them in every way I can so that they defeat Putin so we don't have to send American soldiers over to fight against Putin because he's successful in Ukraine and takes on other NATO countries. That's a message that people very much understand.

Peter Rough:

Well, thank you. That's a wonderful note to close on, and I want to thank both of you. It's been a real privilege to have you on the program. And I have to say, your bipartisanship also shines through in speaking to your staffs in preparation for this because they clearly get along well, and I think that all flows down from the principals at the top.

If you want to speak to Senator Tillis, just call his office when the important legislation passes, and maybe you'll get him on the phone. Senator Shaheen, Senator Tillis, thanks for being here. For those of you watching at home, a few topics that have been already raised, Moldova, for example, we have a new report out just yesterday. We have a major study on Black Sea security that published in cooperation with the New Strategy Center, the most influential think tank in Bucharest in Romania, and of course, our regular work on Ukraine.

We'll see you all at the Washington summit. Hudson is one of the consortium members putting on the public forum. I suspect Senators Tillis and Shaheen will be there as well. And we look forward to seeing you at Hudson.org. Again, thanks so much for joining us, and thank you again, Senators Tillis and Shaheen, it's been a real pleasure and honor to have you.

Thom Tillis:

Thank you.