good morning this is the first hearing we're having in these temporary quarters and our quarters back in the rayburn building it completed their goal of very much like nonproliferation with course and i'm pleased that president obama's undertake an ambitious effort to strengthen and expand our nonproliferation cooperation with russia it's clear that progress is already being made in that arena in many matters are two sets of national interests are intertwined both nations are concerned about extremist terrorism both nations are concerned about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction both nations are concerned about energy security there are many such areas that are ripe for cooperation the us russia relationship remains important and i'm glad the president obama has reinvigorated the last few years iraq and that afghanistan has been  center stage and we've grown accustomed to thinking of our security challenge as well as our nato allies through that lens but we need to look no further than the georgia crisis of last summer to remind us that russia also represents a significant challenge in our security landscape it's clear that russia would like to define any sphere of influence what it calls its near abroad and sickly clear that has made some very nato allies and other european friends quite nervous performing an independent independent role in afghanistan we must not forget that it is first and foremost a regional security arrangement and many of our allies count and therefore us as a guarantor of european stability fellow follow on to the start treaty that expires and samberg even if a new treaty cannot be ratified the december deadline start should not be allowed to expire because the data exchanges and other verification provisions in that tree especially missile defenses administration's ongoing review missile defense requirements and how that fits into a larger framework of u s national security interest in striking an appropriate balance in the us russia and us nato relations is enough necessary though difficult task and with luck the ministration can find ways to work with russia on some of these more difficult topics but in the end the united states must balance and desire to reset the relationship with russia with a clear calculation of our own national interests and the risks and threats that we and our allies do face you must be careful to define these interests in the context of our overall national security strategy at the end of today's hearing thank you mr chairman i want to thank you for agreeing to hold a hearing on this subject regarding the relationship with russia and its relation on impact its impact on the transatlantic security your testimony this morning gives our members an opportunity did to understand the administration russia reset policy and better appreciate the ongoing and evolving security challenges in europe and eurasia this committee last met in march to discuss russia and nato when we received testimony from general john craddock who was until recently commander european command and supreme allied commander his testimony was insightful and came with much appreciated candor craddock said that after the end of the cold war and the dissolution of the soviet union there were no borders under threat of invasion in europe and eurasia general craddock continued stating he thought that assumption has been proven false general craddock assessed that russia's intent may be to weaken european solidarity and systematically reduce u s influence as a result since the georgia conflict in august of two thousand and eight our top military commander back in march since that time the administration's russia reset policy has taken shape while i want to make clear that i support engagement with russia i'm concerned that a grand bargain with russia may risk the viability of the security architecture that has kept the european continent peaceful for nearly sixty years russian misdeeds and provocations in the recent past as well as their planned european security treaty that the kremlin seeks to weaken nato marginalize u s influence in europe and gain a veto over european security affairs this way this was this is why i support nato first policy which would make clear to our nato allies that u s bilateral engagement with russia will not foster collective insecurity among our allies i commend the chairman for including the in the n b a many of the provisions from the bipartisan nato first bill sponsored by mr turner and mr marshall which takes legislative steps to strengthen transatlantic security these provisions to name a few covered the start treaty long range missile defense in europe and u s force presence in europe vice president's wife president biden's visit to your crane in georgia last week was a step in the right direction and his assessment of russia used a pretext to invade invade georgia demonstrated that the reset policy should not sugarcoat russian behavior yet striking the balance of renewed engagement with russia and supporting central and eastern european allies and partners is proving to be a challenge in a july fifteenth open letter to president obama written by twenty two prominent central and eastern european figures expressed deep concern among america's central and eastern european allies over the implications of improved relations between russia and the u s on their security and the transatlantic relationship following vice president biden's visit russia's envoy to nato said that russia considered the question of rearming georgia more serious than whether georgia enters nato secretary clinton quickly affirmed that the obama administration considered russia a great power and remains committed to reset bilateral relations it's precisely this balancing act that played out in the headlines this week that i'd like to our witnesses to discuss today how do we ensure that our bilateral agreements with russia don't compromise our commitment to transcend landing security this leads me to a number of specific concerns what kind of military to military relationship do we expect to have with georgia and ukraine and well you can continue its deliberative planning with respect to european missile defense i'd like to understand how the reset policy has affected nato support of european missile defense in particular the impact it has had on poland and the czech republic as well as the administration's missile defense review with respect to the start treaty that many of us in the house have concerns about how start may impact the nuclear triad considering the announced reductions in strategic delivery vehicles to between five hundred eleven hundred the administration's nuclear posture posture review which frames the military's nuclear requirements at vannes conventional capabilities and space capabilities and hansing the reliability safety and security of our strategic nach nuclear forces and the needed modernization of our aging nuclear weapons complex and finally the large number of russian tactical nuclear weapons deployed near europe in addition to hearing your views on these specific concerns i'm interested in the administration's views on the provisions in the house passed that address these issues finally i hope your testimony they will cover the recommendations of the congressional commission on the strategic posture of the united states in particular i mentioned whether the honest ration will adopt two of the commission's unanimous findings and recommendations number one that the united states must retain nuclear weapons until such time as the international environment may permit elimination globally and to the united states much must also continue to concern itself with issues of deterrence assurance and stability in the nuclear relationship with russia as you can see there's a lot to cover today and i look forward to your testimony and hope that the discussion we have today will give this congress and the american people a better understanding of the u s russia security first bell please thank you chairman skelton ranking member my mckeon and other members of the committee i very much welcome this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the u s relationship with russia and it implications for transatlantic and u s security russia has been a lifelong interest for me since i began studying the russian language in high school in the sixty's as a foreign service officer at what was then the soviet desk in the eighty's as u s ambassador to russia from two thousand and one to two thousand and five and now as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs i've learned that getting us russian relations right is one of our highest priorities and one of our biggest challenges so it's a specially meaningful to report that recent developments in u s fashion relations and most importantly the moscow summit that took place earlier this month have created new opportunities for cooperation with russia to enhance u s and european security we're now trying to build on this positive mentum to collaborate with moscow in areas where our national interests coincide such as nonproliferation arms control and bringing security and stability to afghanistan although we have press the reset button this doesn't mean we will shy away from dealing with russia on areas where we disagree such as georgia or  nato enlargement and we will in no way reduce or compromise our commitment to the security of our nato allies and also our allies in asia and other parts of the world the challenge is to find a way not only to work  russia in areas where our interests coincide but also to continue to engage in the other more contentious areas without artificial linkages it's on this basis that we seek to establish a more solid basis for a sustained engagement with russia mr chairman i'd like to make a few comments on the major areas of common interest where we did make some progress at the summit and where we believe russia can work with us as a contributor to our mutual security also touch on a couple of issues where we still have important differences i have a longer statement that i'd like to submit for the record so i'll keep my opening remarks with in moscow was far more productive than we expected the mood was positive and the discussions were highly substantive opening the way to some concrete agreements and understanding on a range of subjects topping the list was afghanistan president obama's highest priority the russians i think recognize that they too have a stake in defeating the taliban and establishing a stable democratic afghanistan but the most important deliverable was the signature of an agreement permitting the transit of troops and lethal materiel through russian airspace up to forty five hundred military flights and unlimited commercial flights each year which will diversify supply routes and and significantly reduce transit times and fuel costs we also are encouraged by russian interest in expanding their involvement in other areas such as training the afghan police arms control was another area of progress one of president obama's primary goals was to reach a framework agreement for a new start follow on treaty and under the joint understanding signed in moscow strategic delivery vehicles will be reduced to a range of five hundred to eleven hundred and their associated warheads to between fifteen hundred and sixteen seventy five my colleagues i think will say more about start another major summit goal was to strengthen our cooperation with russia on preventing the  proliferation of nuclear weapons and in this regard president obama and medvedev had lengthy discussions on how to deal with the immediate challenges posed by iran and north korea they spent a lot of time on iran in particular and  they agreed as well to broaden our bilateral cooperation to increase security of nuclear materials and facilities worldwide i think taken together the initiatives of the summit on nuclear issues start follow on and  understand is a nuclear security were an important step toward president obama's goal of a world without nuclear weapons and will strengthen us and russian leadership as we prepare for next year's review conference with a nonproliferation treaty now on missile defense although it remains a very contentious issue and we were able to reach agreement on a joint statement which includes a joint ballistic missile threat assessment that will be focused primarily on iran and north korea s team in moscow this week to begin the process we also pledge to redouble efforts to open the long planned joint data exchange center in moscow we hope these modest steps will serve as the basis for more substantial cooperation both bilaterally and in the nato russia framework aimed at defending our nations against ballistic missile threats d o d is as you know conducting is taking a comprehensive look at plans for european missile defense as part of the wider ballistic missile defense review the outcome on european missile defense will be determined by the threat from iran by the technical feasibility of different missile defense options and the cost this is not a bargaining chip in our dealings with moscow on iran on star or on any other issue there are a lot of other subjects where i think we made some progress in resetting relations including nato russia cooperation military to military contacts and european security architecture my colleagues will say more about those they're covered in my prepared statement as i mentioned at the outset there are some important issues where we continue to disagree where the u s is not going to compromise its principles these include nato is open door policy upholding the sovereignty of countries in the post soviet space russia suspension of its compliance with the conventional armed forces in europe treaty and its backsliding on democracy and human rights issues as we move forward we in the russians will need to this discuss these issues in an honest and risk but respectful way and keep them from damaging cooperation in other areas as much as possible i think that of all these areas relations with russia as neighbors may be the most difficult to manage as the president said in moscow the united states rejects anachronistic nineteenth century notions of spheres of influence or spheres of privilege interests that's why vice president biden during his visit to georgia and ukraine last week reaffirmed u s support for both countries sovereignty independence and territorial integrity in our view good u relations with russia and cooperation with russia's neighbors including in the defense and security field should not be seen as mutually exclusive russia on the other hand continues to take as zero sum approach so we're going to have to continue to address these differences in a bilateral dialogue and discussions in the o s c on strengthening european security architecture and we will of course continue to give highest priority to nato which is still the bedrock of transatla security and as we begin to review neda's new strategic concept ensuring that there's no doubt about firmness of article five will be one of our highest priorities chairman and members the signals from moscow since the summit have thus far been largely positive we hope that with a more formal institutional framework for the relationship in the form of the bilateral presidential commission will be able to move toward a more stable and substantive partnership i'll just conclude by saying that if we can maintain the momentum historians may view the moscow summit as a turning point in u s russian relations but there's a lot of work to be done before we can say that we're under no illusion that the reset will will be easy nor do we believe that a strategic partnership will simply develop overnight since our interests do not coincide in a lot of areas but we do believe that improve relations between the u s and russia which had started on a downward trend long before the august two thousand and eight events in georgia can help us meet many of the challenges that we face today so we're cautiously optimistic as we diplomats say that the agreements that arose from the summit will assist our efforts broadly from reducing strategic weapons stockpiles to bringing peace to afghan stan so thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts today and i look forward to your questions thank you very much mr secretary german skelton mr mccann and members of the committee it's good to be back thank you for inviting me to address the committee today in support of my colleagues i will focus my comments on the military aspects of our relationship with russia a it goes without saying that the nature of our relationship with russia on the military side and elsewhere has changed dramatically over the course of the last year with the invasion of georgia clearly representing a setback and at that point  e we suspended all military to military activity with the russians i would point out that that seminal event actually underscores the importance of having a strong military to military with russia as with other nations in the world indeed at several pivotal points during that particular conflict the only constructive khan's contact between our governments was the military to military channel and when i  mullen to helsinki in october of last year to meet with his general staff counterpart i observed firsthand how maintaining a strong military to military relationship can reduce tension and mitigate misunderstanding during  crisis moreover it represented a small but important step in reinforcing our working relationship as a foundation for future progress and we are making progress in resetting this vital relationship we recognize that the path towards greater partnership and cooperation will not always be smooth however by not allowing our relationship to fracture when our interests diverge we will enable the benefits of cooperating where our strategic interests actually coincide positive relationships between our militaries are a foundation for good relationships with our governments in our countries and we're working with the russian ministry of defense and the general staff to rebuild and to try to improve on the military to military programs we had before june for russia's national day and one in july in support of our own independence day we've seen limited but good cooperation on countering piracy off of somalia with a limited russian presence in that part of the world and we reached as you're well aware an agreement on transit through russia of non lethal supplies bound for our troops in afghanistan even before the summit occurred and as you're certainly aware i'm on recently visited moscow twice once in late june for discussions with his counterpart the general staff makarov and again in july and support of the presidential summit where in addition to various other agreements that were signed a new framework on military to military cooperation this framework is our combined vision for changing the nature of our relationship based on the principles of pragmatism parity reciprocity balance and synchronization with nato it will set conditions that raise cooperation to a new level between our respective armed forces although i would echo ambassador vershbow in saying that this will not happen overnight our interactions with russian military officers will importantly improve their understanding of our society and lay the foundation for future relationships such as that enjoyed by admiral mullen and general makarov these two men are also committed to leading the military to military working group of the presidential bilateral commission to ensure that cooperative endeavors in the military realm remain on track and continue in the strategic direction that the president mandated we're currently in the midst of preparing a robust and meaningful proposal for how the military to military commission will function how it will be constructed and what it will it's not as much as we would like for it to be in the future but it's a good start for the remainder of this year they include among other interactions that i will be happy to list for you if you like joint staff talks which i will co chair with my counterpart and moscow we hope in october in addition the u s european command and the russian ministry of defense are postured to create an even more ambitious work plan for the coming year i'd like to make an important caveat though our improved military relations with russia will not come at the expense of our already positive and cooperative military relations with our nato partners and our other important partners we do not believe it beneficial to engage in zero sum games and ship and eurasia or anywhere else and we hope to convey that sentiment to our russian colleagues to cooperative progress in areas of common strategic interest we intend to continue our work with all parties to kill cultivate stability and enhance transparency throughout the region and indeed across the globe in conclusion we nearly always regret severing our military relationships with another country as we did with pakistan in the one nine hundred eighty s as such we're getting back on a constructive footing with the russian military without compromising our principles as i rediscovered in january of last year while visiting the baltic fleet deputy commander aboard his flagship moscow and lisbon relationship at the relationships at the tactical level are almost always warm and productive it's our mandate to ensure that the warmth and cooperation that we joy at the tactical level percolate up to the strategic level and we have every intention of succeeding thank you again sir for the opportunity to be with the committee today i look opportunity to speak with you today about the administration's accomplishments at the moscow summit and about our russia policy more generally i've also submitted by full to my testimony for the record and here if you'll permit would like to just make a few brief opening remarks in any of their remarks by the witnesses will be entered without objection thank you very much my colleagues have already talked about a number of the military and security issues so i would like to begin by putting the results of the summit in a somewhat wider context the obama administration entered office seeking to put an end to a period of difficult and deteriorating relations with russia last december then president elect obama talked about a reset in our relations with russia what he argued was that the united states and russia have common interests in a number of areas these include nuclear nonproliferation afghanistan terrorism and many others and he argued that it should be possible to cooperate practically in these areas even as we disagreed on other issues and i think it's fair to say that the results of the moscow summit demonstrate that the president's instincts on this were correct just six months since the president took office in just three months since he and president medvedev met in london and agreed to hold the summit in moscow united states and russia have gone far toward achieving a fresh start and reaching concrete accomplishments at the summit our leaders made progress in improving the tone of our relations and helping to build goodwill between our two countries but perhaps even more importantly at the summit we were able to translate this rhetoric about potential cooperation into concrete actions that are fundamental to the security and prosperity of both of our countries this significant progress in our relations with russia let me stress did not in any way come at the expense of our principles or partnerships with good friends and allies there are still many areas where the united states and russia disagree my colleagues have already mentioned georgia and nato enlargement among them and we will continue to disagree about these and no doubt other issues the president made this clear in moscow and he also did not shy away from raising both privately and publicly issues such as democracy human rights and press freedoms at the same time in moscow we also demonstrated in real terms our shared desire to build a relationship based on common interests and mutual respect as my colleagues have pointed out already the united states and russia took important steps to increase nuclear security and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons beginning with the reduction of our own nuclear arsenals the two president signed a joint understanding for a follow on agreement to start it commits both parties to a legally binding treaty that will reduce our nuclear warheads and delivery systems by at least one third over current treaty limitations president obama and his russian counterpart spoke at great length on iran and the president underscored the importance we place on international efforts to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons president obama also emphasized the importance of russia's role in pressing iran to comply with its nonproliferation obligations in addition the president's agreed to participate in a joint threat assessment of the ballistic missile challenges of the twenty first century including those posed by iran and north interagency team of experts is already heading out to moscow this week to begin discussions of this joint threat assessment other related area we made concrete commitments to deepen security cooperation including by working together to defeat violent extremists and to counter transnational threats including those of piracy and narcotics trafficking trafficking as my colleagues have pointed out chairman of the joint chiefs of staff mullen and his russian counterpart have agreed on a work plan of resuming military to military contacts that were cut off after the war in georgia i think another very tangible result of the summit was russia's agreement to allow the united states to transport military personnel and equipment across russia in support of the nato led international security and assistance force and our other coalition forces in afghanistan this agreement will add flexibility and further diversify our crucial supply routes resulting in potential savings of up to one hundred thirty three million dollars in fuel maintenance and transportation costs the significance of this contribution to our efforts to bring peace and stability in afghanistan which is also a strategic benefit to russia should not be understated it is indeed an excellent example of how the two countries can cooperate in pursuit of common interests without any quid pro quos we also agreed to strengthen cooperation in non strategic areas including public health and by restoring the work of the joint commission on prisoners of war and missing in action finally president obama president obama and president medvedev recognize the need for a more structured foundation for advancing cooperation in key areas across our respective interagency the  bilateral presidential commission to be chaired by the two presidents and coordinated by secretary clinton and foreign minister lavrov will provide a mechanism for sustaining and expanding on the progress achieved in moscow also providing a forum in which we can work together to effectively narrow our differences not withstanding all these positive developments i want to stress we have no illusions that our reset of russian relations will be easy or that we will not have continuing differences with russia we are however confident that the united states and russia can still work together were interest coincide while at the same time seeking to narrow those differences in a mutually respectful way in this regard the president was unequivocal in his message that the reset in our bilateral relationship will not come at the expense of our friends and our allies more than in words but in actions we have demonstrated our commitment to the territorial integrity and independence of russia's neighbors including ukraine and georgia president obama made very clear in moscow that we will continue to support their sovereignty and their right to choose their own security alliance is a message that was reinforced last week by the vice president in his trip to both of those countries to conclude mr chairman at the summit the united states and russia took significant steps forward in translating the reset in our relations into concrete achievements that benefit both our nations and our global partners without abandoning our principles our friends we demonstrated the united states and russia can work effectively together on a broad range of issues where our interests coincide thank you again for giving us the opportunity to address these issues and i look forward to your questions i think senator gordon my question should be addressed to you can you give a quick summary of the relationship between russia and iran and i have a follow up questions on them  please i think in terms of the way we look at the need for cooperation with russia and iran there are some positive elements and some less positive elements i believe that russia shares our interest in preventing iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and they have taken some constructive steps along with us to achieve that goal they have agreed to several u n security council resolutions making it illegal for iran to it's uranium and imposing sanctions on iran for doing so and they have joined us in the so called p five plus wonder a three plus three process which is our main diplomatic mechanism for showing iran a path to cooperation with the international community if it agrees to provide reassurance it's not  producing nuclear weapons but also making clear to iran that there will be consequences if it fails to do so and i believe that russia has constructively worked with us within that context at the same time let me be  honest we don't see iran in exactly the same way and as i noted the president raised this very clearly with his counterparts and they probably discussed this more than any other issue in moscow because we believe that russia has an important role to play if iran fails to respond to the offer that is currently on the table we believe that pressure needs to be enhanced on iran and that requires russian cooperation russians have been less convinced than we are that pressure such pressure will need to be applied and therefore we continue to work with the russians and make it very clear to them that we hope and expect them to work with us on the way forward if iran fails to respond that leads me to the question will russia support us should the events come to pass in the united nations security council  to have a stronger economic sanctions against iran if further evidence from merges that iran is developing nuclear weapons we will certainly seek such cooperation for a number of years a number of countries including well i'll get to to that what i was going to say as we have been working for a number of years for a number viewers countries including russia have been asking us to be prepared to engage with iran and make sure that iran has an alternative to pressure and sanctions to make sure that iran that has an alternative path if they do cooperate with the international community we have now done that the president has made clear we are prepared to support a civil nuclear energy program for ron and we are prepared to talk directly with iran and we are prepared to support the other members of the security council in offering iran such a path forward that is on the table and we have responded to the request by our allies in europe and in russia to offer iran that opportunity and we have said and the president has made clear that if you're on does not respond soon certainly by the end of the year we will then come back to our partners on the security council and say we have offered that path and now it is time to increase the pressure so there is only one way to find out we'll take it back to the security council and seek russian cooperation can i guarantee that they'll give a positive answer no but that's what we're working to achieve what arms transfer in nuclear cooperation has passed from russia to a room in recent months and years in terms of  nuclear cooperation russia has for years provided assistance to iran in finishing the construction of the share nuclear reactor which is not necessarily a contribution to their nuclear weapons program and so long as the fuel cycle is controlled by russia that can be contained without due for liberation concerns beyond that i don't think that russia is in any way  involved in contributing to a nuclear cooperation in ways that would that would lead to iran that are acquiring a nuclear appen the great concern in iran indeed is it's on autonomous capabilities our great concern in iran is that it develops itself the technology to master the full fuel cycle which would give it the opportunity to so called break out of its nuclear nonproliferation obligations and produce its own nuclear weapons so it's not so much a matter of russia's cooperation iran in the nuclear area it's iran development of autonomous technology that would give it a fuel cycle and a breakout capacity and that's what we're working with russia and others to try to prevent  european solidarity and systematically reduce the u s influence i'd like to ask each of you if you share general craddock's assessment and then does the administration have any concerns regarding president proposed european security treaty and as you administration support you comps efforts to conduct deliberative planning  i'm happy to start i'm sure my colleagues will want to say in the short answer the first question is yes there have certainly been signs that russia has an interest or pursues an interest in dividing the western alliance i think we always have to be careful in talking about russia in deciding which russians we're talking about i think i wouldn't want to issue such a blanket statement that all russians pursue this i think there are others who don't but yes for sure there have been signs of russian efforts to divide the west and to prevent what they would see as undue american influence and a gemini i think that's accurate on the president medvedev idea of a european security treaty we have said that we are always open to discussions of european security and happy to have a dialogue with russia and our other partners about how it can be strengthened but we have also said that we believe there are already some pretty sound european security organizations including first and foremost nato  also including the o s c and those are the channels in which this discussion should take place the nato russia council is an opportunity for us to speak with the russians about european security and the o s c is a chance for all fifty six of its participating states to have exactly the sort of discussion that the russians have proposed so we have insisted that that discussion take place at the o s c as it did at the recent ministerial and frankly there wasn't a lot of support for a russian idea of some sort of new treaty because as i say not only do we think we already have some pretty good institutions we already have some pretty good principles for european security including non use of force and respect for territorial integrity and the principle that countries can join the alliances of their choosing so we are open to dialogue we're happy to hear russian ideas and we're happy to talk to them but we think it should remain in establishing channels based on the principles that we've already agreed on and finally do you support you comes out proceed to conduct deliberative planning yes that's a very important manifestation of our commitment to nato is article five i'm sure my colleagues will want to to elaborate on this but the short answer is yes thank  you i certainly share my colleague's assessment that the russians continue to practice the kind of says that general craddock described terms of seeking to create divisions between the u s and its allies in terms of ensuring that our security guarantees through nato remain effective and that we make clear that key initiatives such as missile defense are not going to be bargaining chips i think that we can manage this and steer the russians on the proposals and i think that we certainly see room for improving some of the mechanisms effectiveness in preventing conflicts what happened a year ago in georgia  clearly is something that we don't want to see repeated and extent that we can improve the effectiveness of activism like the nato russia council in defusing these kinds of situations before they escalate i think everybody security would be enhanced but we don't think that we need to scrap the institutions we have and i think the russians after initial signals that their agenda was to to eliminate nato or to downgrade nato is role have taken a more realistic approach and i said as much including in the moscow summit when they insisted that they weren't trying to abolish nato and we did but definitely believe that not only you come but nato as a whole should be doing the prudent  planning for the defense of all of its members i think this is something that president obama attaches great significance to as the secretary gates and it will be something that will be as we engage with our allies in the formulation of datas new strategic concept which we're hoping to for the first two questions i think my other colleagues are a better position to answer those than i am but i would tend to concur that the russian behavior over the long term has been transactional balance of power  d they'll take whatever they can get i think the important thing is that we've seen from our allies and our friends in europe that they've exercised considerable resolve and they understand the nature of a russian proposal to to do what they've suggested and i think that russia has recognized the resolve that these nations have shown and in fact i think there was a recent comment from from one of them one of the russians that what we don't really want to change the hardware we just want to change the software sort of backing down off of off of that proposal just a little bit so i think i'm not concerned about the commitment of our friends in europe to maintaining the health of the current mechanisms that are there while they're interested in listening to what the russians have to say as they should on the last point it goes without saying that any discussion of actual military planning is a sensitive topic that i would be cautious in an open hearing in discussing but i would also add that we tend to be very supportive of our combatant commanders when they come in and suggest that they need to do some planning and that are most every this is only been in the seat as it were for several weeks and we we know that he is building his thought process in his opinions on what he would like to do there and we will listen very closely when he comes in with a formal proposal should he have one thank you very much  well thank you mr i really appreciate the opportunity to speak to our our witnesses and thanks all of you for your service and particularly with the gentleman to spend just for a moment the clock showed two lights for a here that are suddenly we're all members of the sun who said that it's a large we'll take that into consideration i might get bipartisan support for that proposal if we could just spend a little time on afghanistan perhaps broaden it out to pakistan's while the region i think it was you mr gordon who mentioned supply routes can you elaborate on that a little bit to begin with shore and as i noted that was what i think is a very good example of the of the type of cooperation we can pursue in areas where we have common interests even while we strongly disagree in other areas first can you tell us what those common interests are how do our interests coincide and i think both the united states and russia have a very strong interest in a stable and peaceful afghanistan and we have both of course thought wars and made sacrifices and lost lives and and spent a lot of money in afghanistan when it was unstable and russia like the united states has an interest in stemming islamist extremism which of course emanated from afghanistan and and struck this country so tragically so i don't think we have different interests in afghanistan broadly at least we both have interest in stabilizing that country and that is precisely what we said to the russians we may disagree in other areas but we're working very hard with the rest of the international community to try to stabilize afghanistan you have an interest in that as well it would help us if you allowed us to transit your country and diversify our supply routes and the agreement that we reached allows the united states to undertake up to four thousand five hundred flights including military flights across afghanistan to get what we need to our troops there and as you know it's such a difficult challenge given given us afghanistan's location and we were able to do that the estimates are that doing so depending on how many flights we end up flying could save this country a hundred thirty three million dollars a year by having the shorter routes to fly and that will directly and concretely benefit us and as i said in my opening statement there wasn't a quid pro quo and that's just the sort of positive working together that we're seeking to achieve not they will allow us to fly across their territory afghanistan if we do x or y on george or a nato no we have a common interest and let's do it so it's a concrete agreement and i think directly benefit united states what about other countries in the region central asian states for example as russia what's russia's relationship of them and they're allowing us overflight rights as well  there has been some sort of competition in terms of influence in those countries at least through russian eyes they have been cautious about any american presence or involvement in what they see as their near abroad and that has been a problem because again we keep trying to stress that we shouldn't see our relationship with russia in zero sum terms just to take a concrete example if the united states is able to fly supply missions to afghanistan from kyrgyzstan we would argue that  russia should have an interest in that it's our common goal of stabilizing afghanistan russia has seen it somewhat differently and is worried about any american presence in what they consider to be their backyard but we're now to the point where the united states does have an agreement to use kyrgyzstan territories to help supply in afghanistan we think that shouldn't threaten russia and i think maybe the russians have come around to to that  and that again is the example of the sort of thing we should be able to do without the other countries seeing it in any way as a geopolitical threat that is precisely the sort of thinking we're trying to get beyond the notion that again for the united states is a setback for russia or vice versa  being able to operate out of kyrgyzstan is again for the united states it shouldn't be seen as a threat to russia what about counterterrorism efforts cooperation with respect to afghanistan pakistan the russian counterterrorism efforts and ours are nowhere near playing the sort of role that we are in some of our nato allies but at the same time they're not interfering in the in the role that we're trying to play and the others won't make any comments i simply add that we  have a common interest with russia and the drug piece coming out of afghanistan both both iran candidly and russia have tremendous markets for those drugs and they flow freely across their borders and it worries russia tremendously and they would like multiple routes through central asia through airfields in the persian gulf region where we have close friends who provided us access so that we're not dependent on any one route so  republics keep saying that permanent bases are unacceptable and we keep showing them that we don't have any long term designs to have permanent bases in the region the afghan campaign has gone on longer perhaps than we  also some concerns about what's coming out of the discussions in moscow and i'm looking forward to getting some of your additional thoughts when we take a look at the joint understanding on a strategic arms reduction treaty that was signed it includes a provision that each nation would reduce their strategic delivery vehicles to a range of five hundred to eleven hundred from six hundred ninety one start one treaty and the associated warheads to fifteen hundred joint understanding also included a statement saying that a provision on the in a relationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms russian president medvedev had suggested that progress on start could hinge on the us giving up it european missile defense plans it would appear that the administration is considering such a concession by addressing defense arms and then thirdly the issue of according to march two thousand and nine data from the national nucular security administration russia is estimated to test possess thirty eight hundred operational tactical nuclear weapons while the us possesses less than five hundred start joint understanding does not address russia's tactical nuclear weapons so the questions that follow arise out of the concerns of you know with such a drastic reduction that could be signaled in the joint understanding on delivery vehicles and what is the effect on our nucular triad and is that th since the joint understanding does not include russia's tactical nuclear weapons does the administration plan to address russia's overwhelming number of tactical nuclear weapons thank you for raising all those important issues that me make a couple of comments including in particular on the all things defense and missile defense issue and i hope my colleagues in the pentagon elaborate further on the warheads issues just broadly what i would say on the tactical nuclear weapons no start following agreement is a follow on agreement to a treaty reducing all sense of weapons and that is what it is focused on because we believe that both countries have an interest in reducing the numbers of their offerings of nuclear weapons so it doesn't focus on tactical weapons again i would say broadly well deferring to my colleagues on some of the specifics of the triads or the numbers but the basic belief is that we can certainly maintain our deterrent adequately even at the lower numbers and these ranges of five hundred delivery vehicles and fifteen hundred warheads on the issue of missile defense relationship to start i want to be very clear  there is not a relationship between our thinking about missile defense in europe and the start treaty there wasn't at the summit and there will not be subsequently on missile defense in europe the president has been quite clear all along  that he believes there is a growing threat from ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons particularly from iran and that if we can deploy missile defenses in europe or elsewhere that will protect us and our allies from that threat we should do so when he came into office he asked for a view of plans to do that to make sure that we were going about it in the best way possible and that review is currently underway and what i want to stress is that that review is being driven by our perception of the threat particularly from iran and by our assessment of the technology that would be used in achieving this goal and the goal again is how do we best protect americans and our european allies from the growing threat from ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons it is not what do other countries think including russia or what is the impact of this on start and i also want to point out i think it's quite relevant as you noted sir the russians insisted all along that the price for these agreements in moscow would be us abandoning the so called third site in europe and in particular they didn't want to have even a statement about missile defense unless we agreed beforehand to to do that we didn't do so we refused to do so and it wasn't until the morning of the summit that they understood that we were serious about that and went ahead with a joint statement on missile defense and the agreement to a joint threat assessment from iran and as i say our people are already heading over there now to try to share with them our analysis of the iran situation and convince them of of its seriousness so no there's not a link between missile defense and start or anything else missile defense decisions will be driven by what the threat is and how we think we can best protect americans and europeans thank the  a president president medvedev that is our president counterpart and that's who he mainly met with at the summit he spent more than four hours with president medvedev and talked about the full range of issues and he signed the agreements that he signed with president medvedev he also met with prime minister putin because prime minister putin is the prime minister in a significant victory figure in russia and has significant influence and we won't get engaged in really trying to figure out who does what they have a constitution they have a system we deal with the president we also acknowledge the importance of of the prime minister  and we have reached agreements with russia and those are the ones that we intend to continue to pursue are there differences in emphasis yes i think i think it's accurate to say that there are read their public statements and i think you see some differences but we only have we can only deal with the government that's on the other side and that's what and that's what we do i can't add much to that it's clear that we're dealing with what the russians themselves are calling a tandem ocracy and i think the president you have has been a close ally of now prime minister putin for many years and i think that they do represent a team and as mr gordon said under the constitution president bedu is the head of state and has overall responsibility for foreign policy and therefore he is president obama's principal counterpart but president putin clearly wheel's considerable influence in that system as prime minister has responsibility for the economy and so i think that as m gordon said we deal with the government structure as it is and i think that the conversations in moscow that our president had with both of them suggested that there's not daylight between them and  think that the progress that we made we must assume reflects a consensus between the two leaders even if they do have different accents and talking about certain issues reflecting their different backgrounds  why do you think you made more progress in recent talks one you think the russians were more ready to concede cooperate whatever than we had expected you know one can only speculate we can't know why russians do what they do it does seem out over that the first six months of the administration were a testing period they wanted to see if maybe it was the case that we would be prepared to make all sorts of concessions in the name of a reset in the name of a successful summit in the name of getting over the deteriorate deteriorating relations that i talked about that wouldn't be a surprising  policy for russia to pursue and test us insist that we give up missile defense in order to reach agreements insist that we make concessions on start because we might want a successful summit and i think  be very frank we showed them that that wasn't going to be the case we were quite clear all along we do want some agreements we do want to better relationship we don't think this is a zero sum game in which we always have different interests but we're not going to trade off important principles or allies in order to have a successful summit just for example the issue of the un follow on mission in georgia came up within two weeks of the summit and i think some were wondering if we were so keen on having a good relationship with russia or a successful summit that we would agree to whatever at the u n on georgia in order to have a successful summit but we didn't because we had red lines we had certain principles that we weren't going to walk away from where georgia was concerned we stuck to our guns and the russians ended up vetoing the u n follow on mission in georgia and we were prepared to do that because there are certain things we're just not willing to concede on and i think that to really answer your question once they realize s influence and satellite states the former soviet republic it's that was mentioned earlier missile defense political military interventions in georgia and ukraine power and gain legitimacy that way legitimate or not i would certainly say these russian figures exist and are unfounded i believe it is accurate to say that russia has historical concerns and insecurities that has led it to conclude that its most promising path for its own security is to dominate its neighbors that's a historical russian perception and it continues to exist today to what i would say is an unfortunate degree because i don't think it's accurate i genuinely believe eve that russia would have an interest in stable prosperous democracies on its borders even if they should be members of nato and that this perception that russia has that somehow european security should be seen in zero sum game terms and if its neighbors like ukraine want to be friendly to the united states or want to join the european union and nato that's a threat to russia i believe that that is inaccurate but really to get your question the russian view or at least for many russians again i want to be careful about overgeneralizing because i think different russians have different views and hopefully with time the next generation will have a different view and may come to the view  that stable democracies on russia's neighbor is in russia's interest but right now yes the predominant view in russia is that they're better off dominating their neighbors even if that means instability than accepting the choices of those neighbors unfortunately if i could add agree with what my colleague said i think you have both phenomena at work when you talk about what is driving russia what is the governance in russia when it comes to their national security policy they clearly do have some legitimate security concerns which overlap with ours whether it's politics extremism which is affected them in chechnya and even in in moscow with terrorist bombings  ago i think they do share an interest in controlling the ration of weapons of mass destruction and working with us to try to thwart iran's nuclear ambitions but it's when you get closer closer to their borders when the the more negative impulses i think tend to dominate and that's why those are going to be the toughest issues for us to manage as we go forward but i think that  objectively speaking as mr gordon said russia isn't threatened by nato or by new countries new democracies coming into nato the real security threats facing russia are largely to their south and that's where i think we're going to try to expand our cooperation while continuing the dialogue trying to convince them that nato whose mission now is largely to deal with distant security challenges like afghanistan bringing  to the balkans is actually contributing to russia's security rather than posing a threat but that's gonna be a long debate i think there is a tendency on the part of some russian leaders to over dramatize external threats as a tool of maintaining political control and discipline at home and the system is not one which has all the checks and balances and instruments of accountability that we would like so kind of phobic mentality has entered into the russian consciousness not just on the part of the leaders but part of the people so this is going to be a continuing problem for us going  jacked up their goals we hope to see through through some of these mill military exercises with with the russians and in that context how we're proceeding each other so i believe you are asking about the military exercises with the russians not with black sea part that's correct we believe that whenever we are able to exercise with with the russians or another partner that we gain common understanding that we are able to better understand each other's operating principles and techniques tactics and procedures so that when we do have a common objective for example and piracy off of somalia that we can work more effectively together and we're seeing the  drawbacks of not exercising with them frankly on the naval side as much as we would like to in those piracy operations off of somalia the russians have had a near continuous presence of a destroyer small ships out they're great supporters of those events but we still find that we don't have the kinds of conduct of it and you know signaling techniques and the like that we would like to enjoy with them in order to make that kind of piracy operation affective one way of doing that  to exercise together another way of doing that is just to operate together and before the georgia crisis we did have intermittent operations in operation active endeavor in the mediterranean which is a counterterrorist counterproliferation type of operation in which  a russian ship would show up perhaps once a year and we would enjoy some contact like that but i think that sort of stretches across the board and land air and sea domains in which it's healthy for us to exercise together as i mentioned earlier you have the opportunity to build personal relationships with individual russian leaders who may grow up some day to be important russian leaders and that and i think that's a very important interaction for us to have because i mentioned the sort of warm feelings and und erstanding you were able to achieve at that tactical exercise level are something we would like to percolate up into the higher levels where there tends to be a little bit more bureaucracy in scheduling meetings and that sort of thing than we would like to see from the russian d the previous administration and i'm agile process ministration as well to make a request that we be observers at those exercises as well and of course we've been turned down i think in the past for that can you talk a little bit about the relationship between the recession military exercises with with other countries and that we're not participating in that we'd like to participate and can we use these relationships suppress that case i think that you make a good point we are always seeking transparency in our relationship with whoever it is russia china and the like and we have talked about inviting chinese observers to certain exercises that we conduct we would love to be able to participate as observers and exercises that might be under the aegis of the shanghai cooperation organization or other events that russia does with other people other nations that it considers its partners transparency is good it builds confidence  on both sides that you understand the purpose of the exercise and the actual met tactics techniques and procedures that were used in the exercise to make sure that nothing is a mess and we invite them to to observe our exercises all the time and they don't always appear but the invitation is out there so i think the fundamental principle is that transparency is good we seek more of it and i think we are meeting them more than halfway and in the hopes they will understand that it's in their interest to do the same change in supporting the georgian military i think this russian announcement is unfortunate but it will certainly not alter our policy we think that georgia as a sovereign state has not only a legitimate right to choose its security alliances but also a legitimate right to have a military capacity to defend its own borders and also to participate in multi national operations so we have developed a strategy of providing security assistance to georgia  which will focus in the short term on helping raise the professional standards helping them institute more high quality defense personnel management systems improving their training but over time we're prepared to consider the pro of defensive weapons to georgia as well and we're also supporting their nato aspirations and are helping them do the very arduous process of submitting their annual national program to nato as they pursue their ration considering to participate in the european union monitoring mission that is going on in georgia about that i would say that we think that is a critical mission   missions the european union stepped up with more than two hundred fifty monitors and we support that mission because we think it's critically important that there be independent objective monitors on the ground the e u last week agreed to extend that mission for another year and we're very pleased about that no one has invited us to participate we want to be supportive in whatever way we can that be something we would consider to somebody invited us to participate we will consider any way to strengthen efforts to make sure that there are appropriate independent international monitors on the ground in georgia yesterday and just in general and what's your assessment of the situation in spoken to them georgians a they don't think it's got any better in some cases worse than just here you or observations on the situation in georgia well the situation in georgia is a troubling one russian forces remain in both up cause and south ossetia georgian territory integrity and sovereignty is being violated as the vice president made clear in georgia we don't believe that there is a short term or a military solution to this issue but we will we will also not turn away from it i think there are russians may that in the absence of the u n and other remissions we would just say you know too bad we'll walk away on the contrary we have brought it up at every occasion including the president in moscow including the ongoing geneva talks and including through the support of the you monitoring mission we do not consider the situation resolved we think russia should implement the cease fire agreements of august and september two thousand and eight in support of georgian territory integrity pleased to hear you say th i deal with the countries in that region in the ukraine or by john they're all very very concerned about what what america's going to do in regard to georgia and russia and so i think it's important that we stay strong with the georg if i might just be mature enough to add in the context of staying strong with the georgians i've talked about how the president emphasized these important points in the vice president said when he was there last week we have also thanks to congress support  completed the one billion dollar assistance package to georgia to help the country rebuild from the war and that is already paying dividends in the georgian economy and helping resettle refugees who were expelled we have launched a commission following up on the us georgia strategic cooperation arrangement from last year which met recently in washington as i noted the vice president as recently bought into georgia the deputy secretary i've been there twice we are  actively demonstrating our support for georgia even while reminding the georgians that they need to make more progress in their own democracy and that they need to avoid any productive actions i think our relationship with georgia is very strong and thank you very much we did comment on this briefly earlier and what what was said was that we are reviewing our approach to missile defense in europe the president believes that we should do what is necessary to protect ourselves and our european allies from a growing threat of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles he's ordered a review of plans to deploy and expand radar in the czech republic and interceptors in poland and that review is being driven by our perception of the threat from iran and the technology and we hope that that review will be done by the end of the year so that we can move forward in the way that best would defend us and our allies in terms of the russians was there discussion of it but there has been discussion with russia of is ways in which russia and the united states could cooperate on the issue of missile defense because as we have made quite clear any missile defenses we deploy in europe will not be directed at russia they're designed to deal with a different threat and the size of deployments considered couldn't in any way threaten the russian arsenal anyway so we have been open with the russians as the previous administration was in terms of exploring the possibility of cooperation that could help protect both of our countries we've sent a delegation to moscow several times it is true the russians continue to say that they don't want to talk about cooperation unless and until we give up our changing our current and and we continue to make clear that that criterion is not acceptable to us but we do think that we have a common interest in protecting ourselves from missile defenses and if the russians want to work with us on that then we would be open to that i could just emphasize we're looking at the question of european missile defense as part of the broader missile defense review and the site in poland and the radar and czech republic are among the options that are being considered together with other options that might be able to perform the mission as well as your if you include alternative locations and alternative defenses we are looking at a range of options it's really not appropriate to get into what those options are but reviewing these internally we're not engaged in a discussion with the russians about alternative options at this point until the the review is completed and as we've stressed our conclusions will be based loosely on  threat from iran the effectiveness of the systems and the cost we want to see you know what's the best way to meet the real and growing threat from iran to ourselves into our allies but we do as mr gordon s believe that this is something that the russians should see a common interest and they too could be threatened by long range ballistic missiles from iran and that there may be ways to connect with the russians once we've made our own conclusions as we stressed defensive defensive systems are not covered by our not going to covered by the start follow on agreement will deal strictly with limitations on strategic offensive arms nuclear arms  we we in previous administrations have recognized that there's a conceptual relationship between oftens and distance and it may be some reaffirmation of that principle but that does not translate into any limitations on our missile defense systems to the extent that the russians are prepared to engage in possible cooperation on missile defense i think we would pursue that in a separate forum which is